Climate NGOs listed as Chinese
　

IDENTITY WOES: The UNFCCC secretariat has listed the Industrial Technology Research Institute and three other NGOs as hailing from China. The institute has filed a protest
　

By Vincent Y. Chao
STAFF REPORTER, WITH CNA
Wednesday, Dec 02, 2009, Page 1

The Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) has filed a protest with the organizer of the 2009 Climate Conference in Copenhagen after it was listed as being from “China,” ITRI executive vice president Chu Hsin-sen (曲新生) said yesterday.

Although the institute has sent a letter of protest, it “cannot reject” the opportunity to speak on the international stage because of the incorrect label, Chu said.

Taiwan cannot attend the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference as a national delegation because it is not a UN member. ITRI will be Taiwan’s official voice at the two-week Copenhagen meeting, which opens on Monday. Chu will lead the delegation, while Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) Deputy Minister Chiu Wen-yen (邱文彥) will attend as an adviser.

On the official listing of the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) admitted to the conference on its official UNFCCC Web site, ITRI is shown as being from “China.”

ITRI had applied “in the name of a non-governmental organization of Taiwan, not as an industrial research institute of China,” Chu said, adding that the listing was a mistake by the UNFCCC secretariat and the institute had responded by filing a protest.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the EPA are now working on how Taiwan can participate in the Copenhagen conference with dignity, he said.

Three other Taiwanese NGOs — the Environmental Quality Protection Foundation, the Taiwan Institute for Sustainable Energy and the Supreme Master Ching Hai International Association — are also listed as being from China.

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus secretary-general Lu Hsueh-chang (呂學樟) expressed regret over the listings.

“We would like to apply for the participation using the name Taiwan, but the UNFCCC secretariat would not recognize the title. Our negotiations with it turned out to be fruitless. We really regret this, but there is nothing we can do,” Lu told a press conference.

DPP Legislator William Lai (賴清德), however, said the UNFCCC’s listing of ITRI as a Chinese NGO shows that President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) “diplomatic truce” policy had failed miserably because it had only encouraged Beijing to squeeze Taiwan off the world stage.

Lai urged academics and experts to keep Taiwan’s sovereignty in mind when trying to participate in international organizations.

“The ultimate blame is still on the Ma administration for setting a bad example by denigrating Taiwan’s status. The academics and experts were merely following the government’s footsteps,” he said.

Hsiao Hui-chuan (蕭慧娟), an executive secretary at the EPA responsible for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, said ITRI’s original application listed its address as “Hsinchu, R.O.C. (Taiwan).”

The information was then changed by the conference organizers without notifying the organization, she said.

“The minimum standard that would be acceptable to our government is ‘Chinese Taipei.’ The most ideal would, of course, be the ‘Republic of China,’” she said.

Government agencies would continue to try to attend environmental conferences under the nation’s formal name, she said.

“It doesn’t look like we will be able to attend the conference this month under the method both our agency and the foreign ministry had hoped for,” she added, referring to a Taiwanese delegation attending the World Health Assembly in May as an observer under the name “Chinese Taipei.”

COMPROMISED

The lack of official recognition will hinder the role Taiwan can play in reducing its emissions, which are estimated to be around 1 percent of the global total, officials said.

“Our county faces many problems from not being able to attend the conference as a government entity,” said Chang Tzi-chin (張子敬), deputy minister of the EPA. “This ranges from being unable to participate in global emissions trading to sharing expert dialogue.”

COMPETITIVENESS

EPA official Eric Liou (劉銘龍) said not attending could also risk undermining the nation’s economic competitiveness.

“If the conference results in a consensus on carbon emissions labeling on products, common standards in the manufacturing phase or other regulations … and [Taiwan] lacks access or information to it, we could really be at a disadvantage in the world economy,” Liou said.

UNOFFICIAL

Meanwhile, the foreign ministry said not having a government official lead the delegation to Copenhagen was a way to safeguard Taiwan’s national dignity.

Ministry spokesman Henry Chen (陳銘政) said that since the UNFCCC still has ITRI listed as a non-governmental organization from “Hsinchu, China,” having a government official as the head delegate would indirectly legitimize the nomenclature that Taiwan is so strongly opposed to.

Japanese representative to Taiwan Saito resigns
　

By Jenny W. Hsu
STAFF REPORTER
Wednesday, Dec 02, 2009, Page 1

Japan’s Interchange Association — Tokyo’s representative office — confirmed yesterday that Representative Masaki Saito has resigned but said the resignation would not take effect until its board of directors approves it.

There was immediate speculation that the career diplomat’s surprise move was linked to remarks he made at an academic conference in May at National Chung Cheng University, remarks that were widely criticized at the time by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the Republic of China International Relations Association, Saito said Taiwan’s status was “still unresolved.”

The envoy apologized later for his remarks and Tokyo said Saito’s comments were his own views and did not represent the Japanese government.

While KMT members attacked him, accusing him of spreading false information about Taiwan, independence supporters hailed him for “speaking the truth.”

Shinji Hiyama, the cultural liaison of the Interchange Association, refused to comment on Saito’s resignation except to say Saito was leaving his post for “personal reasons.”

It was not clear exactly when Saito tendered his resignation or when he would leave Taiwan.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it had no information about Saito’s departure.

“The foreign ministry has no information about it and it will respect the decision of the Japanese government,” Deputy Secretary-General of the Association of East Asia Relations Nien Shin-shyh (粘信士) told a routine ministry press conference.

Ministry spokesman Henry Chen (陳銘政) said Taiwan does not interfere with the decision-making process regarding foreign ambassadors’ postings and he stressed that Saito’s departure would not hurt Taiwan-Japan relations.

KMT Legislator John Chiang (蔣孝嚴), a former foreign minister, said he “was not surprised” by the news because Saito’s resignation had been expected since the controversy.

Chiang, who is a member of the Foreign and National Defense Committee, said Saito had lost all credibility and the ability to function as a diplomat because “hardly anyone in the administration and the legislature was willing to meet him.”

“It was unfathomable that a professional diplomat would make such negative remarks toward the country in which he was serving. His resignation was only a matter of time,” Chiang said.

Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers, however, said Saito’s leaving showed that President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) “China-friendly” foreign policy had interfered with Taiwan’s effort to have “substantive relations” with non-allies.

“We are very saddened and disappointed by this outcome. We are very thankful for Saito’s willingness to stand up for Taiwan,” DPP Legislator Tsai Huang-liang (蔡煌瑯) said, adding that Taiwan-Japan ties were at their “lowest point” in a decade.

DPP Legislator Yeh Yi-jin (葉宜津) said Saito’s resignation brought shame to Taiwan and the administration must change its China-centric attitude before ruining the nation’s friendship with other countries.

The government’s indirect boycott of Saito was the main reason for his departure, Yeh said.

China’s influence could have also driven Saito away because ousting a diplomat that believes Taiwan’s status was unresolved fits Beijing’s interests, DPP Legislator Kuan Bi-ling (管碧玲) said.

KMT Legislator Lee Hung-chun (李鴻鈞), who heads the Taiwan-Japan Parliamentary Friendship Group and is on a visit to Hokkaido, said yesterday that he had learned of Saito’s resignation a few days ago.

In addition to the uproar caused by his remarks, Saito felt this was the right time to retire because of the birth of his grandchild, Lee said.
　

Analysts perturbed by handling of US beef deal
　

CRITICAL: The way the Ma administration handled the relaxation of restrictions on US beef imports exhibited the early symptoms of an ‘aging regime,’ analysts said
　

By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER
Wednesday, Dec 02, 2009, Page 3

The government led by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) did a poor job in relaxing restrictions on US beef products as well as managing the controversy that followed in its wake, analysts said.

On Oct. 23, the Department of Health announced the relaxation of import restrictions on US bone-in beef, ground beef, bovine intestines, brains, spinal cords and processed beef from cattle younger than 30 months that have not been contaminated with “specific risk materials.”

In response to the Ma government’s rejection of the possibility of renegotiating with US beef producers, which the administration said would seriously undermine the country’s credibility, civic groups launched a signature drive last month to seek a referendum on whether the government should renegotiate import restrictions.

Meanwhile, although the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus has agreed to amend the Act Governing Food Sanitation (食品衛生管理法) to statutorily ban the imports, the legal revisions remain in limbo, with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT caucuses failing to agree on the details of the proposed amendment.

Wang Chien-chuang (王健壯), former editor-in-chief of the KMT-leaning Chinese-language China Times newspaper, said the way the Ma administration handled the crisis showed that it was not only “arrogant” and “ineffectual” but also showed early symptoms of an “aging regime.”

Lee Yeau-tarn (李酉潭), a professor at National Chengchi University’s Graduate Institute of Development Studies, attributed the backlash to people’s fears over the safety of US beef and the Ma administration’s decision-making process.

“As the KMT controls almost all of the country’s resources, including the media, judiciary, executive branch and the legislature, its absolute power only breeds absolute corruption and abuse of power,” he said.

Although the Legislative Yuan agreed to amend the Act Governing Food Sanitation to ban the imports, the KMT-controlled legislature was nothing but a rubber stamp of the executive branch and the legal revision would be merely symbolic, he said.

Lee said that although it was the Legislative Yuan’s duty to keep the executive branch in check, the legislature was weak and even Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) is at the mercy of Ma, who doubles as KMT chairman and has the power of nominating candidates for the office of legislative speaker.

Facing such a majority government, people’s only option was to speak with their ballots in the next election, Lee said.

Hawang Shiow-duan (黃秀端), a professor of political science at Soochow University, said the Ma administration could have negotiated a better deal, and that it did a poor job in convincing people that US bone-in beef and other beef products were safe.

“After conducting such poor negotiations with Washington, how can they expect the public to trust that they can ban the imports of risky beef products?” she asked.

Quoting a former National Security Council (NSC) official under the former DPP administration, she dismissed a statement by current NSC Secretary-General Su Chi (蘇起), who said the Ma administration was more cautious than the DPP government had been in relaxing restrictions on US beef products.

As Su has said that Taiwan would soon enter an era of negotiations, Hawang said she expected to see bigger storms brewing as the government seeks to sign an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with Beijing next year and as both sides touch on political issues.

Hawang said she did not know exactly why the government was unwilling to renegotiate beef imports with Washington, but added she was certain that the government could have drawn on public opinion or the opposition parties during the negotiation process or after the deal was sealed.

“South Korea renegotiated a similar deal, so why can’t we?” she asked. “China, which is also a WTO member, even bans imports of all US beef and beef products.”

US beef was not only an issue of food safety, but also an issue involving politics, diplomacy, policy elucidation and the will of the people, she said.

Wang Yeh-lih (王業立), a political science professor at National Taiwan University, said the Ma administration could have done a better job of informing people about the negotiation process as it unfolded.

“It does not necessarily have to inform the media or the legislature, but it should at least communicate with the government agencies involved,” he said. “Unfortunately, it not only failed to do so but also underestimated the eventual impact.”

The government could also have provided the public with more information on the safety of US beef, he said, adding that even he as an educated professional was not certain whether it was safe to eat US beef.

The panic sparked by the possibility of an easing in import restrictions signified that the government misjudged the public’s attitude, Wang said.

“I am not sure whether US beef is that dangerous, but the government’s reaction, from announcing the policy to trying to convince the public of its safety, shows its misjudgment and miscommunication,” he said.

Any negotiation causing such widespread public resentment should be considered a failure, Wang said.

“Su has admitted that they did not expect such an adverse reaction. It only goes to show their impact assessment is questionable,” he said.

Even though the government later agreed to revise the Act Governing Food Sanitation, Wang said, the policy had already caused panic and affected businesses, creating a lose-lose-lose situation for consumers, businesses and the government.

Wang said that although South Korea had been able to renegotiate its deal with Washington, Taiwan had different bargaining chips.

Taiwan needs more from the US than the other way around, Wang said, adding that this might explain why the Ma administration was reluctant to renegotiate, as it did not want to “anger” the US or lose more ground in other areas.

The government should learn a lesson from the controversy, as the country is set to negotiate more issues with the US, China and other countries in the near future, he said.

Wu says time not right for building a bridge connecting Kinmen and Xiamen

STAFF WRITER, WITH CNA
Wednesday, Dec 02, 2009, Page 4

Building a bridge connecting Taiwan’s outlying Kinmen island and Xiamen port in China’s Fujian Province is not appropriate as it is a politically sensitive matter, Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) said yesterday.

Wu Hsing-chien (吳行健), chief editor of The Journalist weekly, quoted the premier as making the statement after attending a seminar sponsored by the Taiwan Competitiveness Forum on Kinmen’s development as a free trade city.

Wu Hsing-chien had also accompanied Wu Den-yih to Kinmen on Thursday and interviewed the premier on the planned bridge.

Taiwan would not build a bridge connecting Taiwanese and Chinese territory at this stage because of its political implication, Wu Hsing-chien quoted the premier as saying.

However, the premier said a proposed 4km bridge linking Kinmen island with Little Kinmen island would be built by the end of next year as it is a major part of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) presidential platform.

Chang Ya-chung (張亞中), a political science professor at National Taiwan University, said the government’s stance on building a Kinmen-Xiamen bridge showed its “lack of vision.”

Given Kinmen’s geographical proximity to Xiamen, Chang said building a bridge would be a boon for residents on both sides. Despite the government’s wavering, he said the bridge would be an unavoidable development.

Tung Chih-sen (董智森), a journalist from Kinmen, urged the central government to support the project, saying political motives and funding should not be obstacles to building the bridge.

Given improving cross-strait ties and Kinmen’s proximity to Xiamen, Kinmen has long hoped to play a leading role in boosting Taiwan-China exchanges on the tourism, financial and educational fronts.

Exit Saito, enter uncertainty

Wednesday, Dec 02, 2009, Page 8

The resignation yesterday of Masaki Saito, Japan’s de facto ambassador to Taiwan, marks a new chapter in ailing ties between Tokyo and Taipei. The question is whether this represents a chance for the relationship to start afresh between the Taiwanese government and a new Japanese administration, or augurs a further deterioration.

Saito’s position became increasingly untenable earlier this year after he suggested that Taiwan’s international status is unresolved. The fact that this was true did not lessen the awkwardness of his injection into the debate on Taiwan’s sovereignty and identity. With a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government in power, and no shortage of KMT legislators ready to assail Japan over the smallest perceived slight, Saito learned the hard way that diplomacy and truth-telling are rarely soulmates.

The once-intimate cultural connection between Taiwan and its former colonial master is rapidly weakening, partly because of the gradual disappearance of the old generation who were raised to speak and write Japanese, and partly because few among the younger generation are learning Japanese. The latter has been accentuated at times by the hostility of governments under KMT control, most memorably the Taipei City Government under Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) between 1998 and 2006.

Politically, likewise, this is no longer an era in which independence activists turn to Japan for solace. The historical relationship between Taiwanese independence activism and Japan, which sheltered key figures such as Su Beng (史明) and Thomas Liao (廖文毅) over the decades, is history.

The KMT, however, is mindful of this history and bears a long grudge; for its part, the Democratic Progressive Party seems to be at a loss at how to make use of the Japan card, assuming that one still exists. Either way, the relationship between Taipei and Tokyo was always going to offer new challenges after the end of a productive period under presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), a Japanese speaker, and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).

These challenges have been exacerbated by Ma’s vulnerability to controversies generated or inflamed by KMT hardliners. Under pressure at key moments, Ma tends to sit in the shadows, tolerating the hardliners’ poisonous language and infantile symbolic acts, emerging from the darkness only occasionally to quibble about ephemera with moderates.

When the fight is done, Ma will appear, all smiles, but by that time the sober observer knows where his sympathies lie — and that he has no appetite for direct confrontation. It is a bizarre mix of the personal and the aloof, and it helps to explain why Su Chi (蘇起), National Security Council secretary-­general and Ma’s political minder, has had to clean up after his boss’ mess and mediate with the Japanese or deflect extremist sentiment as required, and why the Ministry of Foreign Affairs so frequently appears nonplussed on relations with Japan.

Ma’s refusal to directly chide extreme elements in the KMT for their attacks on Japan has proved most disappointing, and has fueled the perception that while he may not condone the crude methods and language of certain Nipponphobic colleagues, at a deeper level he shares their distaste for Taiwan’s Japanese history and resentment at its geopolitical stake in Taiwan’s future. This, together with all of the petty bickering, has squashed the efforts that Ma put into improving his image in Japan — including a tour before becoming president.

While Saito’s removal will be regarded as a victory by Taiwan’s pro-China crowd, the months-long number that was done on him by the government (ostracization) and the KMT caucus (ugly personal attacks and demands for resignation) will likely not be forgotten in Tokyo. It will take careful, and sincere, behavior on the part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ma himself for Saito’s successor to feel any more welcome, and for ties to improve.

Obama was outwitted by Beijing
　

By Zhang Wei
Wednesday, Dec 02, 2009, Page 8

US President Barack Obama’s first trip to China was like a splendid stage play. The performance was long rehearsed in both Washington and Beijing, because both governments needed at least the appearance of a successful visit. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) needed Obama’s unequivocal endorsement of China’s increasingly important international role in order to buttress its domestic legitimacy. The US needed China’s cooperation to demonstrate the effectiveness of Obama’s new strategy of collaborative global leadership.

Now that the play is over and the applause has died down, it is time to check the balance sheet and see how much Obama achieved and how much he conceded.

On the positive side of the ledger, Obama received ceremonial treatment not normally accorded to visiting foreign leaders, even other visiting US presidents, demonstrating the importance China’s government attached to the visit. Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) sent his likely successor, Vice President Xi Jinping (習近平), to greet Obama at Beijing Airport, going well beyond the usual protocol. And Hu himself dined with Obama twice during his two-day stay in Beijing — a gesture never made to any visiting foreign leader, including former US president George W. Bush.

Obama also initially appeared to make some progress in giving voice to the universal values of human rights and democracy. He met with students in Shanghai in his favorite “town hall” format, which allowed for face-to-face discussions with young Chinese. Moreover, China’s government allowed the Nanfang Zhoumo, the country’s most liberal newspaper, to conduct a 12-minute exclusive interview with Obama.

But the Chinese public soon discounted the value of these political set pieces. People quickly discovered that the “students” allowed to ask questions at Obama’s town-hall meeting in Shanghai were young CCP activists. Moreover, unlike with other US presidents, the event was not broadcast nationwide, and Nanfang Zhoumo’s full interview with Obama did not appear in the newspaper, despite the CCP propaganda departments’ advance approval of all the interview questions.

And the negative side of the ledger? Obama gave up two things that have usually been at the top of the agenda when US presidents meet with Chinese leaders.

First, Obama did not openly criticize the Chinese government’s notorious human rights record, nor did he use his influence to persuade China to release any prisoner of conscience, as his US predecessors always did when visiting the country.

While Obama toasted Hu, Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波), a famous Chinese dissident, remained shut away in an unknown location, having vanished last December because of his leading role in drafting a written appeal for constitutional rights.

Soon after Obama left China, two other writers, Huang Qi (黃琦) and Tan Zuoren (譚作人), were sentenced to prison.

Their crime was to investigate cases of corruption by local government officials that were linked to the deaths of tens of thousands of students in the Sichuan Earthquake in May last year.

Second, Obama did not seriously seek to resolve existing US-China economic disagreements, particularly over trade. With China running a seemingly perpetual external surplus, foreign-currency reserves have continued to mount even during the global economic crisis, with net growth reaching US$140 billion in the third quarter of this year.

China’s main trade partners are deeply worried about the consequences of this continuing imbalance.

They urge China’s government to reduce its export subsidies and to allow the yuan to appreciate, expecting such measures to reduce their trade deficits, help their economies recover, and create more jobs. On this front, however, China’s leaders made no compromise with Obama.

So, on balance, Obama’s first trip to China achieved relatively little. Moreover, what he did achieve looks superficial, while what he gave up seems substantial.

Of course, this is partly because of the changes in the relative economic and political power of the US and China over the past decade, and especially during the current global economic crisis. However, the sizable deficit on the balance sheet of Obama’s China trip could have been much lower if Obama had paid more attention to substance. It seems that Hu is more skillful than the polished Obama at maximizing his gains at little cost.

Zhang Wei is a lecturer in Chinese economy at Cambridge University.
　

It’s time for electoral retribution

Wednesday, Dec 02, 2009, Page 8

‘This nation cannot afford to allow a fraudster like Ma, whose credibility is in tatters, continue with his cheating ways. Ma, as well as those in his administration who support his policies, can be taught a lesson on Saturday.’

While campaigning in Yilan ahead of this Saturday’s local government elections, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) broke a ban on publicly discussing election-related opinion polls when he mentioned support figures for Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidates and those for the opposition.

Since taking control of both the executive and the party, Ma’s behavior has become increasingly irresponsible. If voters do not teach him a lesson in the elections and allow the KMT to emerge unscathed from these blunders, Ma is likely to pay even less attention to public opinion in future.

Since Ma is so fond of referring to opinion polls, let us take a look at another one.

A poll conducted by the Program for Globalization Studies at National Taiwan University tells us that 60 percent of respondents were dissatisfied with the performance of Ma’s administrative team. This included many of his supporters who voted for him in the presidential election last year. Despite his poor performance, the failure to fulfill campaign promises (“Ma will turn things around right away”) and of his 6-3-3 policy, high unemployment and salaries dropping to levels not seen in 13 years, Ma is still stumping for KMT candidates around the country.

Doesn’t he know that many of the party’s candidates are trying to avoid a “box office flop” like his?

In addition, the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission’s (RDEC) list of the top 15 public complaints include rampant telephone and Internet scams, high unemployment, high consumer prices, high housing prices in urban areas and food safety. These complaints are the result of Ma’s neglect of the domestic economy and living standards in favor of an all out effort to connect Taiwan with China.

Despite these complaints, Ma is still going to recognize Chinese degrees and allow Chinese students to study in Taiwan while ignoring the risks that this will create for Taiwanese seeking employment.

Ma is also allowing Chinese to invest in the Taiwan stock market and the real estate sector, further exacerbating already high consumer and housing prices. The signing of an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA), meanwhile, will create dangerous dependence on China.

So what if the RDEC conducted a survey on public complaints? Ma, who always claims to treat the public hardships as his own, does not really respect public opinion, nor is he bothered by some top 15 list of public complaints.

The real problem, what we should really worry about, is at the source of these complaints — Ma belittling Taiwan’s sovereignty, his China slant, as well as economic and trade policies that will compound an already dangerous reliance on China.

In the past year, Ma’s pro-China policies have ignored the needs and fears of Taiwanese while benefiting a few pro-China conglomerates.

The result? The great majority of us are victims.

Ironically, in the long term the Taiwanese firms that for the moment appear to benefit from Ma’s policies will lose out if China assumes control of Taiwan.

The poll by the Program for Globalization Studies underscores the assault on Taiwanese democracy. Ma, who was appointed by the public, is harming the country and its people to serve the selfish agenda of a few greedy individuals.

Still, there is reason for optimism. For more than a year, Ma has been unflagging in his efforts to create the conditions for the “eventual unification” sought by Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) and his clique. Amid this, the poll shows that 44.78 percent of respondents want a perpetual “status quo” in the Taiwan Strait; 29.97 percent want to maintain the “status quo” and move toward independence at some point in future; and 9.11 percent want to declare independence as soon as possible. In sum, 83.86 percent of respondents are against unification.

During the presidential election campaign, Ma pretended to embrace mainstream opinion by claiming that Taiwan’s future must be decided by the 23 million Taiwanese, without Chinese interference, and that he would continue Taiwan’s efforts to join the UN as this aspiration is shared by the great majority of Taiwanese. As with everything else, however, Ma’s promises were meaningless.

This nation cannot afford to allow a fraudster like Ma, whose credibility is in tatters, continue with his cheating ways. Ma, as well as those in his administration who support his policies, can be taught a lesson on Saturday.

A resounding defeat could provide the kind of jolt that will make him sit up and realize that he’s gone too far, that Taiwanese will not allow him to flush this beautiful country down the drain.

What was said and what should have been
　

By Nat Bellocchi 白樂崎
Wednesday, Dec 02, 2009, Page 8

US President Barack Obama’s trip to China continues to be the subject of hot debate in Western media. Many observers in the US and Europe feel that he allowed his hosts to set the agenda and tone for the visit, and that he insufficiently emphasized the core interests and principles of the US, such as human rights and democracy.

The Obama team seems to have been too eager to “create a positive atmosphere” to encourage China to go along on a number of undeniably important issues, such as global warming, environmental protection, North Korea and Iran.

In doing so, it allowed the Chinese leaders to outmaneuver the Americans. This occurred not only in terms of information control surrounding public events — such as the “town hall meeting” with a programmed audience of Communist League Youth members in Shanghai — but also in terms of substantial issues relating to both Tibet, East Turkestan and Taiwan.

For Taiwan, the biggest setback of the visit was the mention in the US-China Joint Statement of “sovereignty and territorial integrity.” Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) said during the joint press conference that the Chinese side appreciated the statements by Obama that “the US side … respects China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity when it comes to the Taiwan question and other matters.”

Not unexpectedly, ­government-controlled Chinese media, such as Xinhua news agency and the China Daily, immediately reported that Obama recognizes China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity on Taiwan and other issues.

If that is what Beijing believes was said, the Obama administration may want to clarify that this is in direct contradiction of US policy, which holds that Taiwan’s status must be determined peacefully and with the assent/consent of Taiwanese. That is the essence of what was laid down in 1979 in the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) and in 1982 in the Six Assurances.

The problem is that there is significant tension between the TRA and the Three Communiques, the main one being that the TRA represents the US side of the deal as prescribed by Congress, while the Three Communiques represent what China wanted.

To this we may add that some 30 years have passed since the TRA and the Three Communiques were activated, and that in the meantime Taiwan has become a free and democratic country.

Taiwanese were certainly not involved in drafting the Three Communiques, but, interestingly, there was some “Taiwanese” influence in the drafting of the TRA. Prominent senators and congressmen involved in the decision-making in Congress in 1979, such as senators Edward Kennedy, Claiborne Pell, and representatives Stephen Solarz and Jim Leach, did consult with Taiwanese-­American leaders.

In light of the changing situation in Asia, how the US deals with a small, democratic Taiwan on the one side and an increasingly assertive — and important — giant on the other will require careful planning.

It would be a grave mistake, however, if we allowed Taiwan’s existence as a free and democratic country to be held hostage or to be whittled away by the rulers in Beijing.

Taiwanese have worked hard to achieve their democracy. It is essential that the US make crystal clear that Taiwan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity should not be infringed upon in any way, so that the people of Taiwan can make a free decision on their future.

Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.