Tsai discusses beef and Obama with Burghardt
　

By Jenny W. hsu and Flora Wang
STAFF REPORTERS
Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009, Page 1

US beef imports and US President Barack Obama’s recent trip to China were key points in the discussion yesterday between American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Chairman Raymond Burghardt and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), the DPP said.

Briefing reporters, DPP Director of International Affairs Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴) said that during the 70-minute meeting, Tsai told Burghardt the DPP was concerned about the US’ stance on Taiwan as a US-China joint statement released during Obama’s trip had not mentioned the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), the backbone of the Taiwan-US relationship since the two countries severed ties 30 years ago.

The absence of the TRA has worried many Taiwanese who fear the gesture was an indication of deteriorating Taiwan-US ties, Hsiao said, urging Washington to reaffirm its commitment to Taiwan.

The DPP also said the joint statement contradicted the TRA and the “six assurances,” and that the US should make clear that it still adheres to the TRA and that its position on Taiwan’s sovereignty has not altered.

The DPP demanded that the US reaffirm its position that cross-strait differences must “be resolved peacefully with the assent of Taiwan’s people,” adding that the US should make an announcement on arms sales to show the public that its commitment to the TRA has not changed.

Former representative to the US Joseph Wu (吳釗燮), who was present at the meeting, told the Taipei Times that because the Ma administration was not fulfilling its responsibilities to the public, it was the DPP’s duty to do so.

On US beef, Tsai reiterated the DPP position that negotiations should be reopened.

Tsai said the DPP viewed US beef imports as a public health issue although the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) had accused it of manipulating the matter for election purposes, Hsiao said.

Earlier in the day, Burghardt assured Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) that the US’ Taiwan policy remained unchanged.

After briefing the speaker and several members of the Foreign and National Defense Committee on Obama’s trip to China last week, Burghardt said the US had not changed its policy toward Taiwan, adding that Obama told Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) that arms sales to Taiwan would also remain unchanged. Burghardt said Obama made sure the TRA was included in a press conference after his talks with Hu.

“That was a personal desire by him to make sure it was mentioned,” Burghardt said.

Burghardt arrived in Taipei on Sunday night to brief President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), the legislature and opposition leaders on Obama’s visit to China. KMT Legislator Lin Yu-fang (林郁方) said the chairman emphasized that “the US had not changed its policy toward Taiwan nor sacrificed Taiwan’s interests during Obama’s trip.”

Burghardt told reporters that the US beef controversy was a “phony issue” being manipulated ahead of local elections.

Wang said he told Burghardt that Taiwan would like to resume talks with the US on the trade and investment framework agreement as soon as possible.

Pro-democracy HK lawmakers mull mass resignation

DPA, HONG KONG
Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009, Page 1

Pro-democracy legislators in Hong Kong were yesterday considering mass resignations to force what they said would be a de facto referendum on universal suffrage.

One legislator from each of the city’s five electoral districts may resign to protest against the administration’s controversial proposals for constitutional reform. Alternatively, all 23 pro-democracy legislators could resign unless the government produces an alternative plan to bring the territory of 7 million closer to universal suffrage.

Pro-democracy legislators oppose the Beijing-appointed government’s proposals for constitutional reform in 2012 that were unveiled last week.

Hong Kong has only limited democracy, with half its 60 legislators directly elected. The other half are chosen by professional lobbies that are generally allied with Beijing.

Under its mini-Constitution, Hong Kong was technically entitled to full democracy in 2007, but Beijing has intervened to insist there can be no universal suffrage until at least 2017.

Pro-democracy legislators voted down similar proposals in 2005 for not going far enough and are now threatening to derail the latest plan.

The administration proposal made only minor changes to the current electoral system, expanding the legislature by 10 seats, five of them directly elected and five appointed by district councilors.

The election committee, responsible for choosing the chief executive, would increase from 796 members to 1,200.

Hong Kong Chief Secretary Henry Tang (唐英年) described the reforms, now subject to a three-month public consultation, as a “golden opportunity,” but government critics were less impressed.

Pro-democracy groups staged protest marches on Sunday and called for full democracy by 2012.

The democracy camp is split between those who favor resignations to force by-elections, and those who believe that would only antagonize China and make full democracy less likely.

Taichung mayor pledges to protect legal protesters
　

JOB ON THE LINE: Jason Hu said he would find a venue where people can protest peacefully when the latest round of cross-strait talks are in progress
　

By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER
Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009, Page 3

Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強) yesterday put his job on the line, promising to protect legal protesters during the high-level cross-strait meeting that is scheduled to take place in Taichung next month.

Hu said he would step down if he failed to protect people who take part in demonstrations that are conducted in a lawful, rational and non-violent manner.

“The most important thing is that there won’t be any negative impact on the city,” he said.

“Frankly speaking, I’m less concerned about the meeting itself,” the mayor said.

Hu made the remarks during a question-and-answer session at the city council meeting yesterday morning.

The meeting between Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and his Chinese counterpart, Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), will be held in Taichung in the middle of or late next month.

The two sides have agreed to address four issues in the latest round of negotiations: ­fishing ­industry cooperation, quality checks for agricultural products, cross-strait cooperation in inspection and certification and the prevention of double taxation.

They will also “exchange opinions” on an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) the administration seeks to sign with Beijing. The administration has said it hopes to sign the pact next year.

Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) City Councilwoman Chen Shu-hua (陳淑華) said she was against the city’s plan to set up a special zone for protesters during the Chiang-Chen meeting.

Describing the designated area as similar to a “foreign settlement” during the late Qing Dynasty, Chen said it was very likely that protesters would break through any barriers.

“Who would stay there quietly and behave?” she asked.

“The mayor has kept saying that he will take advantage of this opportunity to promote the city, but it seems he never takes into account the rights of the general public,” Chen said.

Hu then promised to find a place that would satisfy the needs of all involved and at the same time ensure public safety.

Taichung City Police Bureau Director-General Hu Mu-yuan (胡木源) said that police would cordon off the venue during the cross-strait meeting, adding that intruders would be subject to punishment as stipulated in the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法).

Hsinchu County hopeful apologizes over ‘distortion’
　

ETHNIC ISSUES: The KMT’s Chiu Ching-chun said he was sorry people ‘with ulterior motives’ misinterpreted his call for voters to support a Hakka candidate in the county
　

By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER
Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009, Page 3

The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate for Hsinchu County Commissioner Chiu ­Ching-chun (邱鏡淳) yesterday offered an apology over comments he made on Saturday.

Chiu, however, said he was apologizing not for stoking ethnic tension, but rather for “some people’s distortion of his remarks” on the matter.

Chiu said he was sorry that some people “with ulterior motives” had misinterpreted what he said. He also apologized to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), whom he said was “deeply disturbed” by what happened.

Chiu said during the KMT’s Central Standing Committee meeting in Hsinchu on Saturday that because the county has a large population of Hakka, voters should support a Hakka candidate and not elect a candidate from a different ethnic group. Ma, who was present, remained quiet.

TENSION

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) later accused Chiu of inciting ethnic tension.

Former premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) berated Ma for failing to criticize Chiu. He asked Ma to apologize and ensure that Chiu corrected his ways. He also said that Ma was not qualified to be president if he manipulated ethnic issues in a local election.

Chiu said yesterday that there were no ethnic problems in Hsinchu County and that Su’s motives for publicizing the matter were ­suspicious. He also said that his remark was taken out of context and that what he said next was not quoted.

“I said: ‘Mr President, what I said just now was not an attempt to incite ethnic tension,’” Chiu said.

“I was simply saying that [as] a member of the Hakka community, [I am] very glad to run for Hsinchu County commissioner,” he said.

MANIPULATION

Ma, who doubles as KMT chairman, said yesterday that candidates must not use elections to manipulate ethnic issues and that he always believed those who do so will never gain voters’ support.

“It is my belief that democratic elections are to elect the most capable candidates possible and to serve the people, not to capitalize on ethnic issues for personal gain,” he said. “The electorate is mature enough to tell who employs such devices and those who do will never get the support of voters.”

Ma made the remarks during a provisional press conference at Songshan Military Airport in Taipei yesterday morning after returning from Kaohsiung, where he inspected disaster areas following Typhoon Morakot.

The press conference was brief and Ma did not make any statement before taking one question from reporters.

Later yesterday, Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) said that Ma had spoken at the airport to show he took the matter seriously. It was inappropriate for the president to comment on the matter in a disaster area, he said.

‘BAD GAMBIT’

“It requires a joint effort to protect Taiwan’s democratic politics,” he said.

“Seeking electoral victory by manipulating ethnic issues is a bad and dangerous gambit,” Wang said.

The spokesman said that Ma had responded to the incident not only in his capacity as KMT chairman, but also as president.

Asked why Ma did not stop Chiu when he made the remark, Wang said Ma might “have had too much on his mind” and that he had a tight schedule, meaning that they could only deal with it afterwards.

Describing Chiu’s remark as “a slip of the tongue,” a presidential office employee who spoke on condition of anonymity said that Chiu should apologize.

HARMONY

At a different setting yesterday morning, KMT Secretary-General Chan Chun-po (詹春柏) said the party and Chiu fully support ethnic harmony and that Chiu was upset with himself after making such a remark.

A poll released by the Chinese-language Global Views magazine (遠見) yesterday showed that Chiu was trailing Chang Pi-chin (張碧琴), who left the KMT to run as an independent.

Previous polls conducted by the magazine also showed that KMT candidates were losing in Yunlin, Chiayi, Pingtung, Yilan and Hualien.

Penghu residents say authorities threatened them
　

By Loa Iok-sin
STAFF REPORTER
Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009, Page 3

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and several Penghu residents yesterday accused the government and judicial authorities of threatening the island’s voters to deter them from casting ballots in the Dec. 5 local elections.

At a press conference at the Legislative Yuan, several registered Penghu voters living in Taiwan proper showed a letter issued jointly by the Penghu Prosecutors’ Office, the Penghu County Police Department and the Investigation Bureau’s Penghu office advising them not to vote in the local elections if they have a household registration in Penghu but do not live in the county normally.

Officially, Penghu has a population of more than 90,000, but only just more than 50,000 people permanently live in the county. The letter was sent to around 400 Penghu residents who do not live there permanently but had recently moved their household registration back to Penghu County.

The letter states that moving one’s household registration to Penghu only to vote for a certain candidate is in violation of the Election and Recall Act of Public Servants (公職人員選舉罷免法) and is punishable by a jail term of up to five years.

“If you are involved in the situation mentioned above, please move your household registration away from Penghu or do not vote in the election, and you should be fine,” the letter said.

“What kind of country is this? What kind of government is this?” A registered Penghu voter who lives and works in Taipei asked at the press conference. “Who dares to go home after something like this?”

DPP spokesman Tsai Chi-chang (蔡其昌) said he suspected the letter was targeted against the DPP’s call for all Penghu residents to go home to vote on Dec. 5.

“The DPP supports prosecution of ‘phantom voters,’ but does not agree with the decision to send out such a letter, because it blocks people’s right to vote,” Tsai said. “We strongly condemn the move.”

Another Penghu resident, Yen Chiang-lung (顏江龍), who did not receive the letter, also condemned the letter.

“The judiciary should never send such a letter to voters unless they have solid evidence that these people are phantom voters — and I believe the majority of the 400 people who received the letter did not move their household registration back to Penghu with illegal intentions,” Yen said. “But this letter may scare them into not voting.”

In response, Penghu Chief Prosecutor Chu Kun-mao (朱坤茂) said the letter was only a “friendly reminder” with no intention to threaten anyone or target any particular political party or candidate.

Tearful Diana Chen says she did bribe Wu Shu-jen
　

By Shelley Huang
Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009, Page 3

Former Taipei Financial Center Corp chairwoman Diana Chen (陳敏薰) yesterday admitted bribing former first lady Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍) with NT$10 million (US$300,000).

Chen’s statement contradicted her previous statements in court.

Chen yesterday appeared at the Taiwan High Court, where she is being tried on charges of perjury.

Prosecutors allege she purposely gave false testimony during questioning last year about the former first family’s alleged money-laundering activities. They also allege Chen bribed the former first lady to obtain the position of chairwoman of Taipei Financial Center Corp.

Speaking to reporters outside the courtroom, Chen tearfully said she had bribed Wu because she wanted to “maintain friendly relations” with her.

During her trial, Chen told judges she had lied about bribing Wu at first because she was faced with the dilemma of being accused of both bribery and perjury. She also said she lied because she was torn emotionally and did not wish to hurt anyone with her testimony.

On June 3, she was accused of perjury along with former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) daughter, Chen Hsing-yu (陳幸妤), his son, Chen Chih-chung (陳致中), and his son-in-law, Chao Chien-ming (趙建銘).

On Sept. 1, the Taipei District Court sentenced Diana Chen to one-and-a-half years in prison, the heaviest sentence of the four. District court judges gave her the full sentence because she committed perjury after Apr. 24, 2007, and therefore did not qualify for a reduced sentence. Her refusal to admit to the charges against her in exchange for a lighter sentence also resulted in her receiving a longer prison term than the others.

Ma’s ‘pragmatism’ is a sham

Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009, Page 8

After years of blasting the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for “creating trouble” in the Taiwan Strait by seeking admission into the UN — at one point under the name “Taiwan” — the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) under President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) vowed to engage in “pragmatic” diplomacy to better ensure the interests of the nation.

One important aspect of this strategy was to seek admission into “specialized” branches of the UN rather than join the world body as a whole, efforts that, under former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), always irked Beijing and, some said, caused unnecessary tension, given Beijing’s assured vetoing of any such initiative. The UN’s inflexible “one China” policy, meanwhile, also made this objective unattainable.

Ma’s efforts initially appeared to bear fruit when, in May, Taiwan was invited to attend the World Health Assembly meeting under the name “Chinese Taipei.” A month later, however, the UN rejected Ma’s endorsement of two human rights covenants — the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights — which he signed earlier this year to coincide with his first year in office.

At the time, Ma said that Taiwan’s democracy had reached “adulthood.”

Maybe it has, but the Ma administration’s quietness about the UN snub and its failure to provide any criticism of the decision, raises doubts about its own belief in the viability of its “pragmatic” policies. It can well argue that, despite the UN’s refusal to accept the ratified documents because Taiwan is not a member state, Taipei will nevertheless implement their contents to bring the country in line with international standards. Yet, once again, Taiwan’s international space has been denigrated. This time, past brazenness cannot be blamed, as “pragmatism” equally failed.

This turn of events also tells us many things about the UN, which recognizes Beijing’s ratification of similar covenants despite its continued infractions against its own people, but denies a country of 23 million the right to add its own voice to those ideals. It shows us that the UN under Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon lacks the imagination to reward Taiwan’s “pragmatism.” Ultimately, what this tells us is that no matter what Taiwan does — forge ahead as it did under Chen, or maintain a low profile under Ma — Beijing will use its influence in the world body to deny Taiwanese any semblance of international space.

The implications of this as the Ma administration signs one agreement after another with Beijing is that in the end, “mature” democracy and “determination” to uphold the UN covenants notwithstanding, Taiwan has made no gain whatsoever in its efforts to protect itself against China’s authoritarian encroachment. As Beijing does not respect the spirit of those covenants within its borders, we can expect that it would show equal, if not more, disregard for them in Taiwan.

The UN’s decision is a terrible blow to Ma’s “pragmatic” diplomacy and different approach to cross-strait engagement. The government’s muted reaction to this defeat tells us that it either feels powerless in the face of Chinese intransigence or else never really believed in its chances of success and was using the covenants purely for the public-relations value.

At least under Chen, Taiwan’s defeats at the UN were dignified.

Obama’s jarring first trip to China
　

By Charles Snyder
Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009, Page 8

‘[US President Barack Obama] was about to declare Taiwan to be part of China, reflective of a predilection to see reality in that way.’

US President Barack Obama’s maiden trip to China contained some very troubling aspects for Taiwan. Obama allowed the Chinese leadership to completely frame the interchanges on the Taiwan issue, and demonstrated a disregard of the US’ vital role in helping to keep Taiwan free of Chinese control or rule.

At one point, Obama came within a split-second of declaring that Taiwan is part of China. Throughout the trip, the existence of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) was virtually forgotten, and Obama ducked the issues of China’s military threat to Taiwan and the need for the US to help Taiwan defend itself.

His praise of cross-strait dialogue and business dealings dwarfed everything else. During a “town hall” meeting with students in Shanghai, Obama enthused that when people think “they can do business and make money ... [they do] not worry as much about ideology.” Or about democracy and Taiwan’s 23 million people?

In a joint press conference, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) said Obama “on various occasions has reiterated” that the US “respects China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity when it comes to Taiwan,” and Obama echoed that commitment in the context of a one-China policy. Does that mean Obama winked and conceded China’s territorial claims to Taiwan during their private talks?

The same formula was used in the joint statement issued at the end of the visit in which the US side proclaimed that “respect for each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is at the core of the three US-China joint communiques which guide US-China relations. Neither side supports any attempts by any force to undermine this principle.”

The TRA, which is the legally binding and moral underpinning of US-Taiwan relations, was ignored.

The most jarring moment came during the “town hall” session on Obama’s first day in China. The meeting was closely orchestrated by the Chinese leaders, and questions were tightly scripted. The Taiwan question was picked via the Internet from a Taiwan businessman operating in China, who said he is “worried” about US arms sales and that his business is doing well because of the Taiwanese government’s current cross-strait policy.

Obama said he backed a one-China policy, and praised the reduction in cross-strait tension, saying he hoped the improvement would continue “between Taiwan and the rest of — and the People’s Republic.” He was about to declare Taiwan to be part of China, reflective of a predilection to see reality in that way. It was, in the word of a leading Washington expert in China and Taiwan, a reflection of his “mind set.”

How did he get this “mind set?” Surely the administration’s experts on China know that “official” US policy is that the status of Taiwan is undetermined and solvable only with the approval of the Taiwanese people. They are too savvy to give him a bum steer.

Perhaps it’s the Geithners and Obama’s Chicago-bred advisors who know nothing about Taiwan who caught the president’s young ear.

What about from the Taiwanese government itself? We do not know what Taiwan’s representative office in Washington or its top representative, Jason Yuan (袁健生), tells the White House. We do know that as a Taiwanese official in the past Yuan has publicly advocated unification.

That came in 1999, when as head of Taiwan’s Los Angeles Taiwan office, he told a panel celebrating the 20th anniversary of the TRA that “Taiwan sees itself as an in integral part of China,” according to a Voice of America (VOA) report.

“It is important, because we are all Chinese, either mainland or Taiwan, we are the same people,” VOA recorded him as saying.

Obama’s emphasis on the joint communiques raised many eyebrows. What do these documents say? The 1972 Shanghai communique during US president Richard Nixon’s first trip to China, states “all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.” That was not true at the time, and today it is nothing but a damaging fiction.

The 1982 communique signed by US president Ronald Reagan, declares that the US does not “seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan, that its arms sales to Taiwan will not exceed” the levels of the years since the switch of diplomatic relations to Beijing. The arms sales totaled US$455 million in 1980 and US$286 million in 1981 — not enough to buy even two PAC-3 missile systems today. Is that really the Obama administration’s policy?

The TRA, by contrast, commits the US to sell Taiwan all the defensive weapons it needs and pledges Washington to be prepared to defend Taiwan militarily against a Chinese attack. It also treats Taiwan separately from China in almost every other way.

Now that is what Obama’s Taiwan policy should be.

Charles Snyder is a former Washington correspondent for the Taipei Times.

The risks of opening to Chinese students
　

By J. Michael cole 寇謐將
Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009, Page 8

The Ministry of Education confirmed on Wednesday that Taiwan could recognize Chinese diplomas obtained after 1997 as early as next June, provided that bills related to the proposal are approved by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-controlled legislature (meaning that they likely will be).

The ministry, we are told, plans to start by recognizing diplomas from 41 top universities — those that Beijing has poured more money into since 1985. This includes Peking University, Tsinghua University, Tianjin University and Fudan University. Public universities would only be able to recruit Chinese graduate students, while private universities could recruit undergraduates.

Anyone who has read the paper “National Humiliation, History Education, and the Politics of Historical Memory: Patriotic Education Campaign in China” by Zheng Wang of Seton Hall University, published in International Studies Quarterly last year, would know that extra funding by Beijing most likely means more brainwashing in school curriculums. If Jian Junbo (簡軍波), one of Fudan University’s top students, is any indication, products of that system never waver from the party line, not even after long exposure abroad — even at Western universities (the 33-year-old Jian, whose op-ed titled “Taiwan’s ‘opportunist’ president alters tack,” published in the Asia Times online on Aug. 11, highlighted a complete lack of understanding of Taiwan’s democratic system and threatened war if work on unification was stalled, is a visiting scholar at Aalborg University in Denmark).

This is why, to give two examples, so many Chinese students abroad supported Beijing’s crackdown in Tibet prior to the Olympics last year, and why Chinese students in Australia led attacks on the Melbourne International Film Festival’s Web site in August over a documentary on Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer.

The more Jians that enter the school system in Taiwan, the more difficult it will be for Taiwanese students and professors to advance their own historical discourse. The mix of chauvinism and strong nationalism that characterized the Chinese academics who spoke at forums in Taipei this month — where they dictated and threatened, while exhibiting a total disinterest in learning from others — would likely be present in those students, who from very early on have been fed propaganda and little else.

Another worry is that an influx of Chinese students embracing their own ideology could result in strong demand for teachers from China, which could engender a process whereby Taiwanese teachers are elbowed out — especially those who espouse a pro-independence line. It wouldn’t be surprising if, in future, the ministry were to announce that it may allow Chinese professors to teach in Taiwan.

As Zheng and others have argued, schools play an important role in the formation of national identity. If the Chinese discourse is allowed to grow roots in Taiwanese schools — through students, curriculums and perhaps professors — then Taiwanese identity will slowly be diluted, and future generations of Taiwanese will have little access to the material that, in their formative years, informs them about, and shapes, who they are.

Of course, all of this would be different — and less worrying — if Chinese who came to Taiwan were keen on learning different opinions and bringing those ideas back to China, in which case exchanges would be positive. But this isn’t the case, and the fault lies with the tremendous efforts at educational socialization that Beijing has made, starting in 1991, with its Patriotic Education Campaign.

Taiwan is under attack on many fronts. By opening up universities to Chinese students, a new beachhead could soon be stormed.

J. Michael Cole is a writer based in Taipei.