No reason to fear US beef: AIT chief
　

UDDER NONSENSE: William Stanton said that scooters were much more dangerous than US beef, so banning them would make more sense than restricting imports
　

By Flora Wang, Ko Shu-ling and Shih Hsiu-chuan
STAFF REPORTERS
Wednesday, Oct 28, 2009, Page 1
　

Following an uproar over the government’s decision to relax restrictions on imports of US beef, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director William Stanton yesterday urged Taiwanese to look at scientific facts on US beef rather than paying attention to “rumors and myth.”

“The World Organization of Animal Health has deemed US beef safe to eat. There are no cases ever that anyone has gotten the Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease [the human form of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, known as BSE or mad cow disease] from eating US beef. No cases ever, and that’s a population of 304 million Americans and over 94 million cattle,” Stanton said on his way to deliver a speech at National Chengchi University.

There has been an uproar since the Department of Health announced last Friday that Taiwan would lift a partial ban on US beef imports that was imposed after cases of BSE were recorded there.

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

At present, Taiwan allows imports of US boneless beef from cattle younger than 30 months that do not contain “specific risk materials.”

Stanton said yesterday that 1,034 people out of 23 million Taiwanese lost their lives in scooter accidents last year.

“So when you look at the risk, statistically, [in contrast to] no cases of mad cow disease [reported in the US], well, one might conclude that one should stop driving motor scooters because of the risk [of the accidents],” he said.

Stanton declined to comment on Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin’s (郝龍斌) campaign to boycott ground beef, intestines and spinal cords from the US, saying that the US would never export unsafe products.

“We are not going to export any risky beef. US beef is safe. The whole cow is safe,” he said.

Stanton said there was no relation between eating a cow’s internal organs and acquiring the disease.

“I understand people’s concerns, but I’d ask people not to listen to rumors and myth, but to look at the facts, the scientific facts,” he said.

Stanton also dismissed media speculation that Taiwan had not been on equal footing during the negotiations. He said the US regarded Taiwan as an equal partner during the lengthy discussions over the past couple of years and that both sides had been very straightforward during the talks.

“We reached the agreement fairly and freely. It was what was perceived to be in everyone’s best interests,” he said.

The US is a strong supporter of free and open trade and Washington believes it is the right thing for Taiwan to open up the Taiwanese market to US beef, he said. In response to calls for renegotiation, Stanton said the possibility had not been discussed.

“We think we reached a good deal. We think what needs to happen is the people of Taiwan need to learn the facts about US beef,” Stanton said.

At the legislature, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-dominated Procedure Committee blocked a proposal by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to demand the government renegotiate beef imports with Washington.

The committee also blocked a DPP proposal that would oblige the government to seek the legislature’s consent before the beef import agreement could take effect.

KMT caucus secretary-general Lu Hsueh-chang (呂學樟) told reporters the caucus would instead push another proposed amendment to the Act Governing Food Sanitation (食品衛生管理法) that would introduce screening mechanisms, adding that the caucus would launch a campaign to boycott internal organs from US cows if the proposed amendment failed to clear the legislative floor.

Unveiling the campaign’s logo at Taipei City Hall yesterday morning, Hau said Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強) and Kaohsiung County Commissioner Yang Chiu-hsing (楊秋興) had expressed interest in their cause and possibly joining the boycott. Hau said the city would be happy to help any local governments interested in the campaign.

Hau said the reason behind the drive was simple: As Taipei mayor and a food safety expert, he is duty bound to ensure food safety and the health of all Taipei residents.

“There are no political considerations in our decision,” he said. “I can fully understand why the government made such a decision under pressure from the US and the international community.”

Since he made the announcement on Monday, Hau said that more than 200 shops and restaurants had signed up and would be eligible to display the logo.

Hau said the city planned to manage beef imports from their arrival and through distribution channels. Participating businesses then manage themselves independently and the city would conduct random inspections, he said.

He also encouraged the public to report offenses to authorities.

Stores caught violating the association’s regulations would face fines of between NT$60,000 and NT$150,000 under the Consumer Protection Law (消費者保護法), said Liu Chug-chun (劉佳鈞), chief manager of the Taipei City Office of Commerce.

Liu said the office planned to send out invitations to 15,000 businesses on Friday and visit shops to promote the plan from Sunday to Nov. 15. Amid speculation that the city government’s move would worsen Hau’s relationship with President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) said the positions of the city and central government were consistent because they both wanted to protect the health of residents.

Wang also said the country has negotiated a better deal than South Korea and set stricter rules.

Taipei City Department of Health Commissioner Allen Chiu (邱文祥) the department would ask businesses that declined to join the association to specify the source of beef items on their menus, a plan approved by the central government’s Department of Health.

Hong Chin-lung (洪金龍), chairman of Taipei City’s Exchange and ­Development Association of Beef Noodles, said his association members used only Taiwan beef and would never use US beef, especially ground beef, spinal cords and brains.

Meanwhile, National Security Council (NSC) Secretary-General Su Chi (蘇起) was invited to attend a legislative committee meeting to explain the government’s decision on lifting the ban on US beef today. After DPP lawmakers alleged that Su was the mastermind behind the decision to lift the ban on US beef, the Judiciary and Organic Laws and Statutes Committee asked him to answer questions.

When approached by reporters yesterday, Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) said he applauded Hau for launching the boycott as it was intended to remove public doubts over the safety of products.

“The safety standards adopted in lifting imports were stricter than in the EU and South Korea, but people still have concerns. The actions taken by local governments are to clear the public’s mind of doubt and they deserve approval,” Wu said.

Wu said he supported the movement, adding that consumers would make the final decision.

“They can choose to eat [US beef and beef products] or not,” he said.

He also denied allegations that the government decided to lift the restrictions in exchange for the resumption of the US-Taiwan Trade and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFA) talks.

When asked to comment on a joint announcement released by the four major importers and exporters associations that said they would hold off on importing ground beef and internal organs from the US, Executive Yuan Spokesman Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) said that “the government was not involved in this.”

In related developments, the Ministry of Education’s Department of Physical Education Director Wang Chun-chuan (王俊權) said the ministry would not encourage schools to include US beef in their school lunch menus until the Department of Health has confirmed the safety of US beef.

Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu (陳菊) also urged the government to rethink its decision to relax US beef import regulations.

The DPP demanded the government relaunch negotiations with Washington and said the ban would have minimal impact on Taiwan’s bid for a TIFA. The party called on the government to delay relaxing the ban until further discussions can be held.

Speaking at a press conference, DPP Department of International Affairs Director Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴) told a press conference the government had failed the people by not sticking to its ground.

Moreover, she said, the government never consulted health experts before making its decision.

“There are losses and gains to each trade deal. But we can’t tell what Taiwan has gained from this one,” she said, adding that Taiwan did not seek any quid pro quo from the US for agreeing to open up the market.

If the KMT can botch a negotiation with the US — a friendly country — imagine how much more damage it can do when it tries to forge a deal with a hostile country like China, she said.

Meanwhile, one day after he announced his boycott, Hau urged the public to refrain from politicizing the matter. Hau said on Monday that 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 a boycott. Taipei was the first local government to announce action against the central government’s beef policy.

China confirms execution of Tibetans over unrest

AFP , BEIJING
Wednesday, Oct 28, 2009, Page 1

China said yesterday that two Tibetans had been executed for their role in deadly ethnic unrest that rocked the Himalayan region last year, the first known use of capital punishment over the violence.

The confirmation by Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesman Ma Zhaoxu (馬朝旭) came after several international activist groups had reported that up to four Tibetans were shot dead by Chinese firing squads over the violence that erupted in March last year.

“The two criminals who were executed were found guilty in accordance with the law in both a first trial and an appeals trial,” Ma told reporters.

“China’s judiciary handled the cases in strict accordance with the law,” he said, noting that the verdicts had been reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Ma said he was unaware of the executions of two other Tibetans reported by the Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy.

Fierce protests erupted in Lhasa and spread across Tibet and adjacent areas in March last year, embarrassing the government in Beijing as it prepared to host the Summer Olympics.

Beijing blamed the Dalai Lama for inciting the unrest, but the Buddhist monk says he only seeks greater regional autonomy.

China has said “rioters” were responsible for 21 deaths, while its security forces killed only one “insurgent.” But the exiled Tibetan government has said more than 200 Tibetans were killed in the subsequent crackdown.

State media said in April that two people had been sentenced to death over the violence, the first such penalties reported.

The top Communist Party leader in Tibet, Zhang Qingli (張慶黎), has said the fight against separatism in the region remained “very serious” more than a year after the unrest, state media reported yesterday.

In a speech in Lhasa this week, Zhang urged all levels of government, as well as the military, to step up efforts to ensure public order, the Tibet Daily reported.

“Since 2005, we have made important contributions to safeguard overall social stability ... by hitting hard and preventing [separatism] and by building a solid line of defence to strike at hostile people,” Zhang said.

China has ruled Tibet since 1951 after “liberating” the region the previous year.

Chinese general defends PLA’s military spending
　

NATIONAL SECURITY?: Though China would never use its weapons for hegemony or expansion, a PLA general said, it needed to build its military to ‘realize unification’
　

By William Lowther
STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON
Wednesday, Oct 28, 2009, Page 1

In an obvious reference to Taiwan, General Xu Caihou (徐才厚), vice chairman of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Central Military Commission, told a Washington audience on Monday that China had to modernize and build its armed forces because the country “has yet to realize complete unification.”

He added: “So, I believe it is simply necessary for the PLA to have an appropriate level of modernity in terms of our weapons and equipment.”

But in a speech and question-and-answer session, Xu was careful to avoid controversy or engage in any detailed discussion of Taiwan. Referring to the world in general, he said that China would never seek hegemony, military expansion or an arms race.

“There is still a huge gap between China and the developed world,” he said. “We are now predominantly committed to peaceful development and we will not, and could not, challenge or threaten any other country.”

He was due to privately meet US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in the Pentagon yesterday before leaving Washington later in the week for a major tour of US military bases.

In his address to an invited group of defense and foreign policy experts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Xu said that China’s development of weapons and military equipment — including cruise and ballistic missiles — was purely defensive, limited in scope and justified “given the vast area of China, the severity of the challenges facing us.”

Dressed in full military uniform and speaking through a translator, he said: “I want to make clear that the limited weapons and equipment of China is entirely to meet the minimum requirements for meeting national security. China’s defense policy remains defensive and is designed to repel attacks, not initiate attacks.”

The visit is widely seen as preparing the way for US President Barack Obama’s planned trip to Beijing next month.

China’s defense spending increased by an average of 16.2 percent a year from 1999 to last year and will rise 14.9 percent this year, Bloomberg news service has said. It is the second-highest in the world after the US — between US$105 billion and US$150 billion. The US military budget last year, not including supplemental spending for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was US$488 billion.

Xu said that China’s military expenditure was “quite low” and that it spends 1.4 percent of its GDP on defense, compared with 4.8 percent for the US.

“We believe that we should prudently handle current and future international affairs with a way of thinking that seeks accommodation instead of confrontation and win-win instead of zero-sum games,” Xu said. “The China-US relationship is one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world. Exchanges and cooperation between the United States and China are important for world peace and development.”

Taiwan has nothing to fear from Kadeer documentary: maker
　

By Jenny W. Hsu
STAFF REPORTER
Wednesday, Oct 28, 2009, Page 3

Taiwan should have nothing to fear from screening a controversial documentary on exiled Uighur activist Rebiya Kadeer, the film's producer said yesterday in Taipei, adding that it would demonstrate that Taiwan’s respect for freedom of speech and human rights was “not negotiable.”

John Lewis, producer of The 10 Conditions of Love — a 53-­minute documentary on Kadeer and her fight for improved human rights in East Turkistan, or Xinjiang — said the film did not criticize the Chinese people, but rather focused on the course of action taken by Beijing to restrict freedom of speech in other countries.

The Chinese government condemned the film and its subject, branding Kadeer a “terrorist” and a “separatist.”

MELBOURNE

When the film was shown at the Melbourne International Film Festival in July, it was met with scorn from the Chinese embassy, which tried hard to have the film removed.

The festival Web site was hacked by protesters who demanded that organizers apologize to all Chinese people.

Despite the confrontation, the film was shown to an audience of more than 1,000 people, said Lewis, and Kadeer was issued a visa to Australia to give a speech.

TAIWAN

The Taiwanese government, however, has rejected any visit by Kadeer.

“I believe there is a more subtle and far more powerful course of action now being taken by China to limit free speech in other countries — at least in subjects in which China is interested — by which it uses its economic power to ‘encourage’ other countries to censor themselves,” Lewis said.

The producer added that several major film festivals, including in South Korea, Canada and England, have refused to show the film, possibly because of Chinese influence.

NEW TACTIC

However, Lewis said Beijing seemed to have taken a different approach to the issue in the last six to eight weeks.

Instead of fighting the film in public, Beijing has stayed quiet about it, he said.

Chinese officials have finally figured out that making a big fuss about the documentary only makes people more interested in it, Lewis said.

SILENCE

Chinese officials’ silence on the film, he said, did not mean that Beijing had eased its oppression in Xinjiang, where Human Rights Watch said more than 40 Uighurs were recently executed.

Lewis has offered Taiwan’s Public Television System (PTS) a broadcast deal to show the film but has not received any response.

Lewis said PTS was interested in a German film on Rebiya titled China’s Public Enemy Number One, but later dropped the idea when it found out the film was Lewis’ film under a different name.

AIT head defends US policy on arms sales
　

FEEL VULNERABLE: The AIT director dismissed a suggestion that US arms sales to Taiwan could turn the nation into a regional troublemaker instead of a peacemaker
　

By Flora Wang
STAFF REPORTER
Wednesday, Oct 28, 2009, Page 3

American Institute in Taiwan Director William Stanton yesterday defended US policy on arms sales to Taiwan, while reassuring Taiwan that the US was a “dependable” friend.

Answering a question from a diplomacy major from China after delivering a speech on US-Taiwan relations at National Chengchi University, Stanton dismissed the student’s view that US arms sales to Taiwan had the potential of turning the nation into a regional troublemaker rather than a peacemaker.

“It [cross-strait relations] is a two-way street,” Stanton said.

Given the number of missiles China deploys along its coast against Taiwan and the fact that China has never withdrawn its threat to strike Taiwan should the government in Taipei declare independence, Taiwanese feel vulnerable, Stanton said.

“There hasn’t been much done by the mainland [to make Taiwanese feel less threatened]. I think much could be done to reassure [the] people of Taiwan,” Stanton said.

Stanton said the possibility of US arms sales to Taiwan turning Taiwan into a troublemaker was not the main issue.

“I think the principal issue is ... cross-strait relations and the sense of threat people here feel,” he said.

Stanton said US arms sales to Taiwan were in line with the Taiwan Relations Act, a policy going back 30 years that commits the US to supporting Taiwan’s self-defense needs.

“It is not necessarily a bad thing, particularly when the weapons don’t threaten the mainland [sic], and they are largely defensive,” Stanton said.

Earlier in the speech, Stanton said that Washington welcomed improved cross-strait ties and ­believed they would foster stability and make Taiwan a more attractive place for investment.

“It avoids the risk of miscalculation and potential conflict, which is the greatest concern we all have,” he said. “[However], Taiwanese people’s sense of security — politically, economically or militarily — is not as strong as it should be despite the warming ties.”

Stanton said Taiwan needed friends to feel secure and that the US would continue to serve as a dependable friend for Taiwan.

“It is clear to me since the [US President Barack] Obama administration came in ... That’s the clear direction we are going in our policy. I don’t foresee any fundamental changes,” he said, adding that the US would not waver in its commitment to providing sufficient self-defense capability to Taiwan, as stipulated in the Taiwan Relations Act.

Stanton remained tight-lipped, however, on the sale of F-16C/D fighter jets, saying the issue was still under discussion.

Stanton said the US was very interested in pursuing trade and economic ties with Taiwan and both Taipei and Washington had been discussing a resumption of negotiations over a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement.

“We have been in discussion already and are waiting for suggestions of when, where and what the agenda would be from Taiwan,” he said, adding that the US had proposed talks on areas such as electronic commerce.

By all means, please interfere

Wednesday, Oct 28, 2009, Page 8

The focus of this weekend’s ASEAN summit in Thailand was, as one would expect, the economy. With representatives from six extra countries attending talks — Australia, India, New Zealand, China, Japan and South Korea — all eyes were on the future of Asia’s growing economic strength.

But the summit also brought ASEAN’s human rights body to fruition after years in the making. Considering the poor records of many of ASEAN’s members, that should have been cause for applause. Rights groups both within ASEAN countries and abroad are, however, concerned that the body is little more than show.

The charter for ASEAN’s Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights was signed by member states almost two years ago. While encouraged by human rights organizations and governments outside of ASEAN, the plans soon came under fire.

The process of negotiating and preparing a charter was spearheaded by Singapore, which itself was cause for skepticism. But criticism came to a head when an internal report was leaked indicating that the commission would hopefully stop foreign countries from “attempting to interfere in the human rights issues” of ASEAN countries.

Concerns resurfaced on Friday, the day of the body’s inauguration, when half of ASEAN’s member states blocked human rights activists from their countries from taking part in an ASEAN forum. Singapore was one of these, as was Myanmar.

Human Rights Watch called the body a “joke” and “worthless” for failing to communicate with voices of concern within the member states.

Taiwan has made greater progress in terms of democracy and human rights than most ASEAN states. As in many other countries in Asia, however, its gains are fragile and must be guarded — an imperative that has emerged under the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).

As a country aspiring to improve its rights record, Taiwan can assure the members of ASEAN that foreign “interference” — in the form of concern expressed by international human rights organizations and foreign governments regarding human rights violations — can play a positive role in discouraging government abuse of power.

Nor is this the case in Taiwan alone. Foreign pressure has repeatedly helped secure the release of political prisoners in countries like Vietnam and China and in some cases seems to have stopped executions.

In Taiwan, it is likely that international attention, combined with the work of domestic campaigners, has helped push the government toward abolition of the death penalty and improving treatment of prisoners. It may also have helped in infamous criminal trials such as the Hsichih Trio and Hsu Tzu-chiang (徐自強) cases.

There is cause for concern in Taiwan that the human rights situation is eroding — including indications of government pressure on media outlets. For this reason, the concern of well-known, international human rights groups is as welcome as ever.

From this perspective, human rights “meddlers” at international organizations or in foreign governments are often a blessing, helping to amplify voices at home that the government would rather ignore. In the case of ASEAN, however, it seems doubtful that member states are willing to listen.

Lack of confidence hurts policies
　

By Lu I-ming 呂一銘
Wednesday, Oct 28, 2009, Page 8

A government requires public trust. This becomes obvious if we look at the latest opinion poll following President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) taking on the role of chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).

More than 50 percent of respondents thought it was unlikely that the KMT would be able to eliminate “black gold” politics and be seen as a clean and uncorrupt party. This shows that bad habits die hard. A case in point is the recent revoking of the election of two KMT Central Standing Committee members for bribing party delegates to win their seats. Cash and a vast array of gifts changed hands.

In an interview at the Presidential Office with Reuters on Oct. 19, Ma said he would not rule out meeting Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤). His stance won the approval of 43.9 percent of respondents of the recent poll, while 36.5 percent opposed it. This shows Ma must increase public trust in his cross-strait policies if a “Ma-Hu” meeting is to have any significance and to push ahead with an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China.

Ma’s approval ratings plummeted in the wake of Typhoon Morakot, which caused the worst floods in 50 years. We should not forget that he won last year’s election mainly because of his promises to clamp down on corruption and ease strained cross-strait relations.

Since Ma took power, however, the administration’s ineffective anti-corruption efforts have angered the public. The “sunshine bills” have been watered down, and three months after Ma vowed to fight corruption, a report is all that has been produced. Even the promise to return the KMT’s stolen assets to the national coffers when taking over the chairmanship turned out to be a symbolic statement. His attempts to restore party discipline have only caused widespread agitation. Since Ma’s “6-3-3” election promise of 6 percent annual economic growth, US$30,000 in per capita income by 2012 and a 3 percent unemployment rate fell through, unemployment has remained high.

A recent survey by Hong Kong-based HR Business Solutions shows that employers in the Asia-Pacific region plan to raise salaries over the next two years, but pay increases in Taiwan will only be 2.5 percent, fifth from the end among the 19 polled economies.

It also seems cross-strait relations have moved too fast. Even international media outlets have questioned whether Ma’s cross-strait policies lean too much toward China. US commentator Philip Bowring said in the Oct. 6 edition of the New York Times that: “Taiwan’s position as a de facto independent state seems to be morphing very slowly toward the ‘one country, two systems’ status of Hong Kong.”

Xu Bodong (徐博東), director of the Taiwan Research Institute at Peking University, said that “Beijing had high hopes for Ma, but so far, disappointments outweigh hope.”

Ma’s attempt to push through the signing of an ECFA has run into public opposition and it is being boycotted by the opposition. The root cause of this problem lies in the lack of public trust. The details of the proposed pact remain opaque, and it is evident it would have an adverse impact on Taiwan’s industry.

An ECFA assessment report released by the government is not convincing. Newspapers have reported that Beijing’s Ministry of Commerce estimates that China would benefit four times more than Taiwan from an ECFA as its GDP would increase by 0.63 percent — more than US$27 billion — under tariff concessions.

On the other hand, a study conducted by the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research in Taiwan estimates that an ECFA would increase this country’s GDP by 1.72 percent — only US$6.9 billion. If there are complementary measures to create a win-win situation, have these been clearly explained?

The main reason Ma’s cross-strait policy has stalled is not Beijing’s united front tactics, but Ma’s failure to build credibility within his party. Taiwan has witnessed two transfers of power, and both have proved that access to political resources will not buy public support. Sovereignty still rests with the people.

Although improving cross-strait relations is important, it is not as important as gaining public trust and improving living standards.

Lu I-ming is the former publisher and president of Taiwan Shin Sheng Daily News.

US-China relations remain crucial
　

By Sushil Seth
Wednesday, Oct 28, 2009, Page 8

If one were to go by the apparent bonhomie in US-China relations since the administration of US President Barack Obama came to power, it would be fair to surmise that there has been a significant shift in US policy toward China in favor of cooperation and collaboration.

However, this is only part of the story.

An important shift in the US stance toward China was made clear during US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s China visit, when she asserted that the US’ concerns about Beijing’s human rights record would not derail progress in other areas. Beijing greatly appreciated this.

China was also encouraged by Obama’s inclusion of two Chinese-Americans in his Cabinet: Secretary of Energy Steven Chu (朱棣文) and Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke (駱家輝). This, however, is a double-edged sword because Beijing believes that Chinese ethnicity should transcend all other loyalties for overseas Chinese, and that they should serve the cause of the motherland and its communist political order.

This was bluntly articulated by Wang Zhaoguo (王肇國), a Politburo member and a former head of China’s United Front Department, at the Eighth National Congress of Returned Overseas Chinese and their Relatives. He reportedly congratulated them for using “blood lineage,” “hometown feeling” and “professional linkages” to achieve “outstanding results in uniting the broad masses of overseas Chinese.” Such calls on overseas Chinese to put their ethnicity before their citizenship can be counterproductive because it raises the specter of a “fifth column.”

However, the Sino-US bilateral relationship appears to be going through a honeymoon phase. This was demonstrated when more than 250 senior Chinese officials descended on Washington in late July for their annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue. In his opening speech to the meeting, Obama highlighted the importance of the US-China relationship when he said: “The relationship between the United States and China will shape the 21st century.”

The US and China are seen in some quarters as a “bi-umvirate” in managing the world economy. Emphasizing convergence in their respective responses to the global economic crisis, US Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg said: “I think it’s demonstrated that there is no de-coupling, that we need each other.”

During her visit to Beijing, Clinton expressed her appreciation of China’s investments in US treasury bills and bonds. China is now said to be the country’s biggest foreign creditor.

What has happened so far, however, is simply a change in atmospherics, without any substantive improvement. Take the question of trade imbalance, with China stockpiling billions of US dollars. During last year’s US presidential election, Obama accused China of manipulating its currency to gain an export advantage, costing jobs in the US. In the new atmosphere, Washington no longer uses the word “manipulation” of currency. But the Obama administration maintains that the yuan is undervalued. In other words, the huge trade imbalance and the billions of dollars in currency reserves that China continues to accumulate remains a serious issue.

Then there is climate change. While China makes a lot of noise about controlling carbon emissions in the future, it is not willing to accept binding cuts. This could develop into a very serious issue if carbon emissions control legislation, which is being developed in the Senate, were to impose tariffs on products from countries such as China that do not accept binding cuts to their emissions.

However, the US wants China’s support on some contentious international issues. For instance, Washington hopes Beijing will agree to new sanctions on Iran if they are deemed necessary. While Beijing supports nuclear nonproliferation and Iran’s inclusion in it, it is not keen on UN Security Council-mandated sanctions.

Indeed, China hosted an official visit from Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi only a few days ago. The Xinhua news agency reported that Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) commended the progress in Sino-Iranian relations at a meeting with Rahimi. Even with existing sanctions in place, two-way trade between China and Iran rose 35 percent last year, to US$27 billion. And in the last five years, China has reportedly signed about US$120 billion in oil deals with the Islamic republic.

North Korea, though, has become an area of shared concern. Washington relies heavily on China in persuading Pyongyang into giving up its nuclear ambitions. Despite Wen’s recent visit to North Korea, the latter remains obdurate, and Beijing is not willing to bring down the regime in Pyongyang for fear of a flood of refugees into China. Beijing’s political leverage is limited. Therefore, US reliance on China to reign in North Korea seems as unproductive as any other course.

Even though political rhetoric on China sounds quite positive, there is considerable concern about its rising military power. Lately, there has been a panic of sorts in US military circles over China’s development of a “killer missile,” believed to have “the range of a ballistic missile and the accuracy of a cruise missile,” to target US aircraft carriers.

Vice Admiral John Bird, commander of the Seventh Fleet, is worried.

“Challenged with that threat, you might adjust your approach, but that is a far cry from making carriers obsolete,” Bird said in Sydney.

He does think that China’s naval capability “has grown much faster than any of our predictions.” And many of these new capabilities “are intended to counter” the US Navy with weapons systems “targeted to our carriers and larger ships.”

Referring to some provocative naval incidents that recently occurred in the South China Sea, Bird said: “They [China] have made it clear they consider the South China Sea to be more or less theirs.”

And he is quite right because China passed legislation in the 1990s to assert that claim. The South China Sea is therefore likely to become the testing ground of China’s maritime power.

Basically, “the Chinese would like to see less of the Seventh Fleet in this part of the world,” Bird said.

He said that China ultimately aimed to displace the US in the Pacific. In other words, despite all the recent political bonhomie between the US and China, the inherent logic of an eventual naval showdown at some point in the future is hard to ignore.

Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.

Taiwan has a dearth of courses on PRC history
　

By Wang Dan 王丹
Wednesday, Oct 28, 2009, Page 8

As a visiting lecturer at National Chengchi University’s Graduate Institute of Taiwan History, I have learned a few things about the kinds of courses available at history departments and research institutes in Taiwan. One thing I find astonishing is that, among courses offered for either undergraduates or graduate students, one can hardly find any with titles like “History of the People’s Republic of China [PRC]” or “China since 1949.”

Chengchi’s Institute of International Relations used to do research on the “bandits,” as the Chinese Communist Party and government were called in those days, but this research was limited by the prevailing ideology of the time, and there is no such department anymore.

Even Taiwan’s top research establishment, Academia Sinica, has no department devoted to PRC research.

Chinese history since the 1949 revolution comes under the Institute of Modern History, and as far as I know there aren’t many people researching it. Among universities and institutes that have China research departments, few offer complete courses on PRC history.

I have three reasons for calling this situation astonishing.

First, I studied in the US for 10 years, and also did some research in the UK, so I know that almost every university in Western countries has courses and research on East Asia, or courses on Chinese history that extend beyond 1949.

Now, with the PRC’s “non-peaceful” rise, countries around the world are paying ever-greater attention to understanding China, and modern Chinese history is a popular course to take.

Taiwan’s educational and academic institutions have always taken Europe and the US as their models, so why do they make an exception by overlooking this trend?

Second, following Taiwan’s second transfer of power, cross-strait relations are moving toward concrete and close exchanges. China’s influence over Taiwan is strengthening.

Looking to the future, no matter whether power again changes hands and no matter how greatly the views of Taiwanese on cross-strait relations diverge, China is a presence that cannot be ignored.

When dealing with such a powerful rival, Taiwan cannot afford to be ignorant of its history. As they say, know your opponent as you know yourself.

Of all countries, Taiwan in particular needs to have a deep understanding of the course China has followed over the past 60 years. The need is there, but the education system has not caught up, and that’s a pity.

Third, while there is actually plenty of information about China available in Taiwan these days, especially in the media, I have noticed a trend among some news outlets to tread carefully in their reporting in deference to China’s might.

The picture of China presented by Taiwanese media is rather incomplete. China’s history since 1949 is rarely touched upon. As a result, young people in Taiwan hardly understand anything about China.

Many students in my classes have told me that they chose my course because they want to know more about Chinese history since 1949, so such a demand does exist among students.

If we want to get a real understanding of China, we cannot allow the media, pressured as they are by their practical interests, to mislead the public. It is important to give our students a thorough and carefully analyzed foundation in the PRC’s history.

Wang Dan is a visiting associate professor at National Chengchi University’s Graduate Institute of Taiwan History and a prominent figure in China’s democracy movement.