EU Foreign Affairs/Security Catherine Ashton's Raving Hypocrisy

Taiwan's recent executions "sparked concern in the EU". No really, I kid you not. Check this out:

In a statement issued following the executions, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton said she deeply regretted the execution and urged Taiwan “not to undertake further executions.”

Saying the EU had been encouraged by Taiwan’s de facto moratorium on executions that had been in place from late 2005 until last year, Ashton called on Taiwan to “put in place an immediate de facto moratorium on executions, pending legal abolition.”

The executions came less than a year after the ministry resumed the implementation of capital punishment in April last year.

Following the resumption of capital punishment, Taiwan is now once again “one of the very few industrial democracies to implement capital punishment,” Ashton said, adding that the EU considers the abolishing the death penalty a contribution toward the enhancing of human dignity and the progressive development of human rights.

“It’s the EU’s view that the death penalty does not serve as an effective deterrent, and that any miscarriage of justice, which is inevitable in any legal system, would be irreversible,” Ashton said in the statement.

Who is Catherine Ashton? Readers may recall that it was Ashton who put forth a new policy document arguing that the time had come for the EU to sell weapons to China.

Yes, Ashton's position is that it is wrong for Taiwan to execute five of its citizens convicted of crimes by due process of law, but it is ok to sell China weapons that it will use to maim and kill innocent civilians in the countries that it may go to war with, and to preserve and extend its murderous authoritarian rule at home and abroad.

UPDATE: Lots of comments below.

UPDATE 2: FOARP observes:

It should also be said: when making the statement condemning the death penalty Ashton was speaking for the entire EU in her official capacity. The proposal to lift the ban on arms sales, on the other hand, was her own.

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

War wares and China Round Up

First off, the EU has rejected an attempt to end the EU arms embargo against China.

"There remains a broad consensus within the EU that the time is not right to lift the arms embargo. We need to see clear progress on the issues that necessitated the embargo in the first place, namely on civil liberties and political rights," a British diplomat told EUobserver on Tuesday (4 January) in response to speculation on a potential shift in EU policy, which would require agreement by all 27 EU members.

A diplomat from a former Communist EU country added: "There is simply no talk of it in the run-up to the EU foreign ministers' meeting [on 31 January]. After the Nobel Peace Prize and China's reaction to that, it is politically unimaginable to make any move for the time being."

The move came down in the latest EU foreign policy blueprint by Catherine Ashton, the High Rep for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Wiki has some quite nasty criticisms of her:

For example, on her appointment, the associate editor of The Spectator, and former editor of BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Rod Liddle, wrote: "Never elected by anyone, anywhere, totally unqualified for almost every job she has done, she has risen to her current position presumably through a combination of down-the-line Stalinist political correctness and the fact that she has the charisma of a caravan site on the Isle of Sheppey."[30] According to one Whitehall source[who?]: "Cathy just got lucky...The appointment of her and Herman Van Rompuy [as European Council president] was a complete disgrace. They are no more than garden gnomes."

The motion to end the embargo was supported by France (slogan "not quite as venal as the US in foreign policy, but we're trying hard!") and Spain, and objected to by Washington. I heard privately that Ashton had not consulted any senior officials around the EU countries before making this recommendation.

China's boorish objections to the Liu Xiaobo Nobel make a nifty reason not to lift the embargo, and a reminder of how the CCP actually stays in power.

WSJ has an article on the sighting of an alleged stealth fighter, designated the J-20, in China.

But many more experts say they believe the pictures and the aircraft are authentic, giving the strongest indication yet that Beijing is making faster-than-expected progress in developing a rival to the U.S. F-22—the world's only fully operational stealth fighter.

China's defense ministry and air force couldn't be reached to comment on the latest photos. Even without official confirmation, however, the photographs are likely to bolster concerns among U.S. officials and politicians about China's military modernization, which also includes the imminent deployment of its first aircraft carrier and "carrier-killer" antiship ballistic missiles.

More details on the fighter are in this Washington Times piece. Meanwhile the US navy says the effectiveness of those famous Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles is as yet unknown [thanks for the correction].

While the Chinese have deployed an early version of the world’s first anti-ship ballistic missile system, U.S. naval intelligence officials downplay the near-term impact, since China’s military hasn’t conducted a full-scale test or established an operational unit for the missiles.

China has a “workable design” for an anti-ship missile but “it is unknown to us and probably the Chinese as to how effective the missile will be without a full-scale test,” the Navy’s Office of Naval Operations for Information Dominance, which includes Navy intelligence, said in a statement yesterday to Bloomberg News.

On a related note, a columnist at Foreign Policy says there will be reshuffling in the Obama Asia team. Jeff Bader will likely be stepping down from his post as essentially Obama's Asia man.

The leading candidate to replace Bader, according to several administration sources, is the NSC's Daniel Russel, one of the directors who currently works under Bader. Russell is a Japan hand, having served as the head of State's Japan Desk after being consul general in the Japanese cities of Osaka and Kobe. Russell's selection might give Japan watchers hope that the White House would reinvigorate the stagnant U.S.-Japan relationship, but the likelihood is that China will continue to dominate the administration's Asia agenda going forward.

Similarly India, in a bid to become independent of its Russian military supplier for naval hardware, is launching a design center for naval shipbuilding. Alarmed by China's moves in the Indian Ocean region, India is responding by moving to guarantee control over that vital area.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

Uncle Sam Demurs as the EU Advances =UPDATED=

As in Taiwan the legislature brawled over the pact, there were some interesting (non)-developments on FTAs and ECFA. First, upon hearing that ECFA had been signed, the United States eagerly rushed to support democracy, enhance its own trade interests, expand its influence in East Asia, and drive peaceful economic growth in the region by offering Taiwan a US-Taiwan FTA.

Nope, I lied. Uncle Sam doesn't need trade or economic growth or East Asian influence because the US economy is booming right now and our foreign policy has made us the envy of the world, while China is in rapid decline.

Oh wait, that's not right either. I'll try again.

Ok, what actually happened is nothing. David Shear, US State Department Official, speaking at a seminar in Washington, announced that the US thought that Taiwan had the right to enter into FTAs.

"Under WTO rules, any WTO member is free to negotiate trade agreements with other members as long as WTO standards are met, and we believe Taiwan should be able to do that," he said at a seminar in Washington, D.C. on relations across the Taiwan Strait.

This was the first time that US officials had expressed that thought, precisely, but I doubt anyone was much worried, since Taiwan already has FTAs with several countries.

Shear said, however, that "the United States has no plans to begin talks with Taiwan about an FTA at this time."

.....

Shear said the U.S. would reinforce bilateral trade and economic cooperation through the existing Taiwan-U.S. Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA).

FTAs sure are nice when other people do them, but let's not and say we did, offers The Greatest Nation on Earth. The US official once again announced that ECFA was A Good Thing (he could hardly do otherwise) but left this little tidbit at the end:

As to whether any ministerial-level U.S. officials are likely to visit Taiwan, Shear said the U.S. does not have any such plan at the moment. The issue should be considered in a larger framework guiding U.S.-China relations, he said.

In other words, whether US cabinet-level officials visit Taiwan is contigent on whether it pisses Beijing off. Pssst...maybe that's why you should do it, guys! It would be great if the next official said that such visits were part of a larger framework guiding US-China-Taiwan relations.

About the only good thing in all this is that when I was off searching to see when exactly it was the TIFA talks stalled I got this hit first, which almost made up for the fact that it turns out that TIFA has been dead in the water since 2007 over the beef fracas. Plans are to restart at the end of 2010. So congratulations Taiwan, ECFA changes nothing between the US and Taiwan.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, an ECIPE paper argued that the time had come for an EU-Taiwan FTA under the WTO framework:

This paper discusses the economics and geopolitics of EU Taiwan commercial relations and weighs the case for a free trade agreement (FTA) between them. There is a widespread belief that China will oppose an EU-Taiwan FTA. The recent cross-Straits rapprochement, recently crowned by a trade agreement, could provide a window for Taiwan to sign trade deals with other partners. An FTA with Taiwan would boost some of Europe’s most competitive sectors in ICT, automotives, pharmaceutical products, and telecommunications, financial, business, transport and environmental services. Taiwan needs to position itself as a production platform for global markets. Taiwan is member of the World Trade Organisation - legal obstacles to an EU Taiwan FTA are minimal. But China needs to be reassured that the agreement does not involve recognition of Taiwan’s formal statehood.

Love that last sentence. Poor China, always in need of reassurance.

An EU-Taiwan FTA would be great, always provided that it didn't claim that Taiwan was part of China. Done under the WTO framework it need not do that. But this is all pie in the sky at this point.

Today's light humor is provided by this Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) poll on ECFA, which found, not surprisingly, that the good people of Taiwan are swooning over the pact. I'll let Taiwan Today carry the ball:

The poll found that nearly 61 percent support the ECFA negotiation results. A resounding 79.3 percent endorsed the government’s handling of cross-strait affairs via the institutionalized negotiations. Only 15.9 percent disapproved of the government’s conduct.

What a success! The polls have swiveled round overnight!

Stop the presses! KNN was kind enough to publish the whole poll. Many of the questions are loaded (and others notable chiefly for their absence), but number 3 is a keeper:

The former DPP government allowed 17 items of Mainland products, including towels, bedding products, clothes, and shoes, to enter the Taiwan market, to the detriment of these local industries. In the latest ECFA negotiation, the current KMT government neither decreased the tariffs on these 17 items nor allowed any additional items from Taiwan’s disadvantaged industries to be imported to Taiwan. Do you think the current government has protected Taiwan’s disadvantaged industries?

No leading the respondent there! This was conducted by the China Credit Information Service, which has old connections to...well, never mind, you can figure that one out from the name.

UPDATE: It took me a while to find it, but while MAC claims 79% support for the SEF-ARATS mechanism, this March Global Views poll found....7.4%. While 65% said that ECFA should be signed under the WTO framework.
___________
Daily Links:

• Did China just win the Caspian Gas War? Yes, it did, and it also won the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. It is looking for the trifecta when we hit Iran. Please, can someone stop us before we invade again?
• Neil Wade with awesome Jade Mountain hiking pics.
• The Peking Duck gives two claws up to Formosa Betrayed.
• http://www.chinadialogue.net/ with special focus on environmental issues in China.

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

WHO Letter Drive

FAPA Europe is organizing a letter drive on the WHO issue. Details in email below.

++++++++++++++++

Dear Friends:

As you know, Taiwan is actively seeking to join the WHO (World Health Organization), and this May 19th to 24th, the annual World Health Assembly meeting will be held in Geneva....If you have friends or relatives who are also fluent in English, French, German, Greek or whichever European language (such as university students in Taiwan majoring in foreign languages, or friends and relatives living in N. America or Europe), please encourage them to write to their foreign affairs ministers. It is every citizen's responsibility to stand up for his country especially with the difficult situation Taiwan finds itself now, relying on government officials to do all diplomatic missions are just not enough. Please join us by starting your own WHO letter campaign today.

A sample letter:

Dear XX, Minister of Foreign Affairs:
Re: Disease Prevention without Borders

In the coming World Health Assembly (WHA) meeting, Taiwan will again seek World Health Organization (WHO) membership application as well as WHA observer status, such admittance is long overdue and we hope you will support Taiwan's efforts wholeheartedly.

Since the 2005 secret MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) between China and the WHO, Taiwan has received only 16 of 231 public health notifications issued by the WHO. Taiwan was notified of only 40 of more than 1,000 WHO technical meetings and allowed to attend only nine of those. The MOU therefore indeed blocked Taiwan's meaningful participation in the WHO activities instead of its original intention.

Because China has a history of covering up the severity of epidemic spread and diseases within its own borders, if there is any delay in epidemic reporting or statistics misrepresentation, there will be dispute on which side causes the problem. The current WHO's procedures of informing Taiwan all health-related issues under the MOU guidelines are totally unacceptable. For example, last September in which Thailand exported contaminated baby corn, resulting in severe illness in some countries, but Taiwan's public health authorities were not informed by the WHO until much later than other countries. Therefore, Taiwan's representation in the WHO has to be completely independent from China's involvement, not to mention about the fact that China has never governed Taiwan for a single day since its foundation.

In the era of increasing globalization, the exclusion of Taiwan from the WHO poses a large danger for everyone, including citizens of your country. We cannot afford to leave Taiwan out of the loop in combating the threats posed by epidemics. Global responses to infectious diseases need to be speedy and well-coordinated by all nations, as epidemic spread is not confined to national boundaries.

The WHO Constitution enshrines the principle that the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being. If your government is serious about promoting the fundamental rights of all people, then it must support Taiwan's integration into the global health community in a meaningful manner, independent from China's unethical demands, and your health officials should actively supervise the operation of the WHO so that the WHO, with its current Chinese Director General, is carrying out the mission of the WHO, not the political agenda of the Chinese government.

Another WHO campaign letter sample is found here but it's best to change it slightly,

Where to send your e-mails:

Norway
Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Denmark
Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Sweden
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2085
email to Carl Bildt, via the senior registry clerk

Finland
Alexander Stubb astubb@europarl.eu.int

Ireland
http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/home/index.aspx?id=8596

UK msu.correspondence@fco.gov.uk
The Rt Hon David Miliband, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

Greece
Ministry of Foreign Affairs

For other countries in EU, please check out the portal by clicking on each flag in the map http://e-uprava.gov.si/e-uprava/en/evropa.euprava, then click on the state's portal

+++++++++++++

I think the sample letter is pretty good, since it connects WHO policy to the secret memorandum of understanding between China and WHO that supposedly provides for Taiwan to participate as "Taiwan, China" but which in reality appears to prevent Taiwan from participating.

[Taiwan]

Ignoring the Kitty Hawk Lesson

The media are reporting on yet another warning from the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Thomas Christensen, on our referendum. This report is from the DPA, which doesn't even need to slant the piece the way it often does; Christensen's remarks are already pro-China enough. To wit:

A senior US official Thursday reiterated Washington's warning against Taiwan's planned referendum on joining the United Nations, calling the move risky and provocative, according to Taiwan press reports.

The warning was made by Thomas Christensen, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, at a news conference held specially for US-based Taiwan reporters, the Central News Agency said in a dispatch from Washington.

Tawian is planning to hold the referendum alongside the presidential election in March 2008 to ask voters if the island should join the United Nations under the name Taiwan.

At the news conference held at the State Department, Christensen said the US had openly and privately expressed objections to Taiwan's UN referendum.

The US believed the referendum signified that Taiwan was seeking to change the status quo of the Taiwan Strait, violating the pledges President Chen Shui-ban made when he began his first term in 2000.

The pledges included not changing Taiwan's title - the Republic of China - and not holding a referendum on independence from, or unification with, China.

These remarks do not differ from the normal Bush Administration script, in which China's missile buildups are never labeled provocative, but a referendum from Taiwan which cannot possibly succeed -- and whose ultimate end is entirely under China's control -- is considered "risky" (Chen smacked back the following day). US behavior must drive the Chinese absolutely wacky -- on one hand, the US maintains a studied silence on the Chinese military build up, does not sell Taiwan needed weapons, and labels Chen's behavior "provocative." It almost looks like a clear invitation to invade. Yet the Navy sent Kitty Hawk through the Taiwan Strait. And Congress keeps issuing expressions of support.... US inconsistency is neatly encapsulated in the State Department's rapid response to the UN Sec-Ban's claim that Taiwan was part of China -- it insisted that the status of Taiwan is not determined. But look on that selfsame department's website, and there the status of Taiwan is indeed determined -- it is part of China.

Arrgh.

I said it before, but let's say it again, with a more expanded version:

Anyone who has observed China's relations with the outside world for any length of time has seen this pattern again and again. In the midst of negotiations with the Vatican, it consecrates two bishops for the state Church. In the midst of negotiations over the Torch coming to Taiwan, it denies a visa to the representative of the city of Kaohsiung to discuss games held there in 2009. Arriving in India for negotiations, its ambassador announces a whole Indian state is part of China. Some months back the Chinese government shut down an expat magazine in China that was widely considered the most sympathetic and supportive expat rag in the nation. After attending the ASEAN meeting in November where it has positive interactions with ASEAN members, it immediately goes out and holds war games in waters disputed by those nations, without informing them. China gets the Olympics, and crackdowns on the internet, and journalists intensify, while state security arrests double.

Catch the pattern?

The US Navy struggled for the better part of a decade to establish good relations with China, to erect early warning systems to help stabilize the regional military situation, to engage in exchange programs, offering access and information to the Chinese. It got little in return, and then the Chinese decided to block Kitty Hawk's access to Hong Kong. Slap! Remember your place in relation to the Throne!

The reaction of China-watchers was quite interesting, sort of like a tribe of natives, their village destroyed by lava, trying to find some rational reason for the whims of the volcano god. China was angered by weapons sales to Taiwan. Nope, it was Tibet. No, they wanted to demonstrate their ambition to boot the US from Asia. Of course, all this was but to say: if only our men had been braver and our women more chaste, the volcano god wouldn't have wiped out our homes.

Looking at Kitty Hawk, what results do you think the Bush Administration is going to get for State's support of the Chinese position on Taiwan?

[Taiwan] [China] [Kitty Hawk] [missiles] [US] [US Navy]

China Opposes UN Referendum...as Earth still orbits sun

Reuters reported that China was once again kvetching about the UN referendum, a harmless piece of electioneering that can have no concrete effect, since China possess a veto in the UN and can block Taiwan's entry whenever it pleases.

China has again prodded the United States to oppose a controversial referendum on U.N. membership by Taiwan and warned Washington to stop arms sales to the island China claims as its own, state media said on Tuesday.

The purpose of this exercise is apparently to get Washington to say something to Taipei. But the latter two players have already expressed their mutual displeasure with each other's stance, and neither the obdurate Bush nor the election-bound Chen is going to back down.

Meanwhile French President Sarkozy, in Beijing drumming up business for French companies, was kind enough to say a few words on behalf of Beijing about the referendum:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Monday that his country opposes "Taiwan independence" and the island's push for a referendum next year on UN membership.

France holds that there is only one China in the world, and Taiwan is an integral part of China, which is the general position of the international community, Sarkozy said.

Any unilateral initiative is "ineffective and unjustified", especially the planned referendum, he said during the meeting with President Hu Jintao.

"It (the referendum) is not a useful initiative. It is therefore regrettable and I hope it will not be pursued."

Several European leaders have spoken out on China's behalf. Last month it was EU Preznit Javier Solana who did the Beijing kowtow. As the Economist reported this summer:

Why is the EU meddling? Taiwan is a thriving democracy and big trading partner (almost as important as India or Brazil). The explanation is simple and unedifying: the EU is doing China's bidding. Chinese rulers regard the Taiwan referendum as a sneaky step closer to an eventual declaration of formal independence by the island.

China expends extraordinary energy on pestering other governments to preserve the strange limbo inhabited by Taiwan, a self-governing island of 23m that it insists is a wayward province. Whenever Taiwan irks China, its ambassadors appear at foreign ministries worldwide, demanding that Taiwan be rebuked.

An internal EU memorandum sheds light on the way such strong-arm diplomacy works. Prepared by officials working under Javier Solana, the EU's foreign-policy supremo, it describes a meeting, late last month, between the Chinese ambassador to the EU, Guan Chengyuan, and a top Eurocrat. According to EU note-takers, Mr Guan called the referendum provocative and destabilising, and said China wanted EU support, as it did not want to have to use “the last resort”—an apparent reference to its threat to use force, if necessary, to “reunify” Taiwan.

China always welcomes people to meddle in its "internal affairs", so long as they agree with Beijing. Fortunately the EU rank and file is hardly as craven as its leadership -- despite calls from leaders the embargo on arms sales to China remains intact, and 84 members of EU lawmaking body called for representation for Taiwan in the UN last month.

A group of 84 members of the European Parliament released a joint statement Thursday to express their support for Taiwan's bid to join the United Nations.

The members representing various political groups, who have gathered in Strasbourg, France for the European Parliament's plenary session, noted in their statement that Taiwan is a sovereign state that has never been governed by the People's Republic of China and that it is wrong and unfair for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to claim that Taiwan is part of China and deny Taiwan's eligibility for membership.

They pointed out that in a report on China issued last September, the European Parliament called for representation for Taiwan's 23 million people in international organizations and that to this day, Taiwan remains excluded from most of these organizations.

Calling Taiwan a full-fledged democracy with a highly developed economy that can make valuable contributions to the international community, the members urged the European Union's 27 member states and other U.N. members to seriously consider Taiwan's application for membership in the world body.

China knows full well that the referendum cannot succeed. Why is it pushing the EU and Washington so hard to suppress Taipei? Because if it attacks Taiwan's democracy itself, it risks stirring up the DPP's pro-Taiwan voters, and souring KMT supporters with its heavyhandedness. Hence it wants other to do its dirty work. Hopefully US and EU officials won't continue their policy of running interference for China.

[Taiwan] [China]

CNS News: UN Head Criticized for Taiwan Rejection

CNS news, which appears to be a right-wing news site, carried an article today on the criticisms aimed at UN Sec-Gen. Ban for his decision to reject Taiwan's application to the UN under the name Taiwan:

But Ban got it wrong, experts pointed out. While the resolution recognized the PRC as the only legitimate representative of China at the U.N., it "said nothing at all about Taiwan being part of China," noted American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Gary Schmitt in an article posted Monday.

The Taiwan-based China Post said in an editorial that Ban's interpretation had "made quite a stir here" and "raised many eyebrows."

Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian wrote to Ban again, pointing out the error.

Chen also noted that according to U.N. rules, "only the Security Council and the General Assembly have the authority to review and decide on U.N. membership
applications. The UN Secretariat does not have the power to decide on such
matters."

The letter was returned, however. Ban spokeswoman Marie Okabe said the correspondence from Taiwan "could not be received" due to resolution 2758, and was therefore returned by the U.N.'s office of legal affairs.

Gary Schmitt, now at AEI, is a former PNAC member (when are progressives going to get off their asses and stop leaving Taiwan to the Right?) has posted an essay at AEI. He notes:

Putting aside the fact that passage of the resolution itself--by a simple majority vote of the General Assembly--was a violation of the U.N.'s own rules for addressing such questions, U.N. Resolution 2758 did not deal with the issue of Taiwan. Indeed, as a matter of history and international law, the San Francisco Peace Treaty--the 1951 accord signed by 49 states formally ending the war with Japan--explicitly left open "the future status of Taiwan." And to this day it has not been formally settled. As recently as this summer, the State Department allowed that, as far as the U.S. government was concerned, the PRC is "the sole legal government of China, [but] we have not formally recognized Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan." Unless Secretary-General Ban has now taken on a second job as a foreign policy spokesman for China, he has exceeded his brief in conflating the question of who represents China at the U.N. with the status of Taiwan.

There is in fact no good reason for Taiwan or, if one prefers, the Republic of China, not to be a member of the United Nations. Certainly, the U.N. is no stranger to figuring out ways to accommodate membership for states with complicated or even dubious sovereignty issues. From the start, for example, the Soviet Union insisted that Ukraine and Byelorussia, today's Belarus, have votes in the General Assembly along with its own, despite the fact that both republics were clearly governed by and from Moscow. Or take India, a member even before its formal split with Britain.

Schmitt ends with a couple of strong observations:

However, giving the people of Taiwan their due seems to be the last thing on anyone's mind these days. Rather, placating Beijing by letting it dictate what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to Taiwan's international personality is the order of the day. Yet doing so only reinforces in China's mind that it can get away with bullying Taiwan every chance it gets--which in turn feeds Taiwan's need to push back, if for no other reason than national self-respect.

Even the Kuomintang, the main opposition in Taiwan to President Chen's Democratic Progressive party and the party most open to some sort of official reconciliation with the mainland, is supporting initiatives seeking U.N. membership. And the reason is pretty straightforward. In today's Taiwan, if you want to win an election, you have to show you care about maintaining the country's sovereignty. Until Washington understands that dynamic, it will continually be taken by surprise by the democratic politics of Taiwan. And unless Washington begins to take a more assertive position in helping Taiwan find its space on the international stage, it can count on being caught up in a cycle of Taiwan Strait crises that are getting no less dangerous for all involved.

Perhaps a good, first step in breaking this cycle would be for the folks at Foggy Bottom to make clear to the new secretary-general that a "clarification" by him is in order.

Hopefully the fog at Foggy Bottom will soon be dispelled........

[Taiwan] [US] [China] [UN]

Revolting Story of EU Kow-tow to China

Here's something sick from the Economist:

China tells the EU to dump on Taiwan. The EU asks “How hard?”

ASK officials in Brussels about relations between China and the European Union, and you will soon hear the word “values”. A recent EU strategy paper on China calls on Europe to pursue a “dynamic relationship with China based on our values”, notably including democracy and human rights.

Try telling that to Taiwan. It is about to receive a stern EU injunction to act “sensibly and responsibly” by scrapping a planned referendum asking voters whether they would like the island to seek membership of the United Nations under its historic name, the “Republic of China”, or just “Taiwan”.

What could be sicker than the EU serving China? Not much. BTW folks, the Republic of China is not Taiwan's historic name, but its official one.

Why is the EU meddling? Taiwan is a thriving democracy and big trading partner (almost as important as India or Brazil). The explanation is simple and unedifying: the EU is doing China's bidding. Chinese rulers regard the Taiwan referendum as a sneaky step closer to an eventual declaration of formal independence by the island.

The conventional wisdom is that China is concerned about a formal declaration of independence by Taiwan. But they have to know that there is neither the political consensus nor the Constitutional possibility of such an event occurring. Since they have the veto in the UN, they also know that Taiwan will never enter the UN under its own name.

So what is Beijing up to? They know from their pals in the KMT that the UN referendum is an election year ploy that will have no real effect on anything. So this isn't about "Taiwan independence" really. It's about stopping or defusing an election year ploy, on behalf of its allies, the KMT. It is also part of its long-term policy of making Chen Shui-bian look like a "radical."

The Economist then goes on to explain what is going on:

China expends extraordinary energy on pestering other governments to preserve the strange limbo inhabited by Taiwan, a self-governing island of 23m that it insists is a wayward province. Whenever Taiwan irks China, its ambassadors appear at foreign ministries worldwide, demanding that Taiwan be rebuked.

An internal EU memorandum sheds light on the way such strong-arm diplomacy works. Prepared by officials working under Javier Solana, the EU's foreign-policy supremo, it describes a meeting, late last month, between the Chinese ambassador to the EU, Guan Chengyuan, and a top Eurocrat. According to EU note-takers, Mr Guan called the referendum provocative and destabilising, and said China wanted EU support, as it did not want to have to use “the last resort”—an apparent reference to its threat to use force, if necessary, to “reunify” Taiwan.

The memorandum records Mr Guan's EU host as agreeing that a referendum is against Taiwan's own interests, and offering to send a “clear and forceful” message to Taipei to that effect. America, which has many reasons to seek China's diplomatic goodwill, has publicly rebuked Taiwan over the referendum. The EU, in contrast, will stick to private warnings for the moment, to avoid “playing into the hands” of Taiwan's “populist” president, Chen Shui-bian, by giving him “undesirable” publicity.

Portugal, which took over the six-month rotating presidency of the EU this month, has duly drafted a private warning to Taiwan, saying that a referendum risks raising tensions and would be “unhelpful”. A parallel message is to be sent to China, urging restraint.

The Economist writer then demonstrates a good grip on things, rare in foreign correspondents:

UN membership for Taiwan is a long-lost cause, and Mr Chen's referendum plan is at heart an electoral ploy ahead of next year's presidential poll. But that is the sort of thing that happens in a democracy. One dissenting EU diplomat says the Union is pretending there is “moral equivalence” between Taiwanese election politics and Chinese threats of violence. Certainly, this is not how most people understand the EU's oft-professed values.

Remember how the EU criticized Estonia for removing markers of Russian colonialism there, and for wanting to join the UN? Hey wait....that never happened. Hypocrisy, thy name is politics.

Meanwhile back in Taiwan, former DPP presidential candidate Peng Ming-min, who has been working on independence for the island since the 1960s, had a few public words for the EU yesterday.

A former senior presidential adviser, Peng Ming-min (彭明敏) said on Thursday that although the EU considers the lucrative Chinese market important, it should give Taiwan's democracy a chance.

Speaking at a seminar hosted by the Taipei Representative Office in Belgium, Peng said that poor cross-strait relations still posed a danger, even though other problems across the globe have meant that the international community has paid less attention to the issue.

While cross-strait economic relations are increasing, progress was lacking on the political front, Peng said.

MISINFORMED

Peng said many of the perceptions held by Western countries on cross-strait issues were incorrect and disputable, including the "one China" policy, the emphasis on the maintenance of the "status quo," and calls for Taiwan to engage in a dialogue with China and not to provoke China.

Taking the "one China" policy as an example, Peng pointed out that Taiwan, which has been operating independently over the past several decades, is a sovereign and democratic political entity.

"The claim that Taiwan, which is totally different from China, is `part of China' is obviously made with disregard to this reality," Peng said.

On the "status quo" that some countries had asked both sides of the Taiwan Strait to maintain, Peng argued that no one was able to define the concept because the situation was always changing.

For instance, Peng said, China's military buildup is a strategy to change the status quo, while Taiwan's arms procurement and even economic growth are also changing the status quo.

"After taking into account all these factors, the so-called `status quo' is totally meaningless," he said.

It's a shame that the EU is taking the anti-democracy position here. At least they did not do so publicly.

Longtime commentator Ting-i Tsai also had an excellent article on the referendum bid in the Asia Times:

The DPP could present the referendum as a move to expand Taiwan's diplomatic space in the face of rejection, but most academics in Washington see it as an exercise in political cynicism, designed to capitalize on the failure of Taiwan's UN bid in September by consolidating voters' anger toward mainland China.

Harvey Feldman, senior fellow for Asian studies at the Heritage Foundation, a co-author of the US Taiwan Relations Act, and one of the creators of the American Institute in Taiwan, noted that the idea "is mostly an attempt to mobilize the [ruling 'pan-green' coalition] base and make sure it votes. As far as getting into the UN is concerned, it is an essentially meaningless gesture."

Dennis Hickey, professor of the Missouri State University's political science department, echoed Feldman, arguing, "In Washington's view, domestic politics is driving the Chen administration to once again engage in provocative behavior - activities that outrage Beijing - in order to realize some domestic political gains."

But Hickey added that the referendum may not have long-term repercussions: "A termination of American support for Taiwan is not in the cards - after all, Chen is a lame duck."

What will happen? Nothing. The referendum will be held, it will pass or fail, UN entry will fail, the smoke will clear, everyone will realize that nothing has happened, and life will go on. China might complain, but note that it never takes concrete moves -- it never seizes businesses or blocks investment or refuses visas to Taiwanese. "Being provoked" is an event that happens only in the international media. It doesn't take place in the real world.

As I said, this isn't about responding to Taiwan independence. That is only the excuse. The international media is reading China's move incorrectly, I think. This is about helping out the KMT in its quest to gain the presidency by getting other nations to put pressure on the DPP to stop engaging in an internationally meaningless election ploy that will help the DPP get elected.

[Taiwan] [US] [China] [EU] [European Union]

Psalmanazar at DKos, WHO Entry

The first Taiwanese in Europe, Psalmanazar, blogs at DailyKos on the problem of press freedom and the UN on World Press Freedom Day:

The practice of denying Taiwan’s professional journalists press accreditation to the World Health Assembly began in 2004, when the United Nation’s Geneva Office took over responsibility for handling the media for the event. It is ironic that before 2004 the WHO saw absolutely no problem in handing out press passes to Taiwan’s professional journalists to cover the WHA meeting while it continued to deny their country of origin the right to similarly observe that event.

But in May 2004 the UN’s Geneva office suddenly decreed that only journalists who could produce a passport from a country recognized by the UN and another form of photo ID would receive accreditation, a decision that effectively barred the majority of Taiwanese journalists because the UN doesn’t recognize Taiwan nor the rights of its 23 million citizens. That year only two Taiwanese journalists were given press credentials, and this was only because they happened to possess American and British passports. When asked about the sudden reversal in policy, chief of the Geneva office’s press and external relations section said that the UN doesn’t recognize Taiwan as a state and that the reporters’ Taiwan passports were merely “local passports”.

The UN’s decision to deny Taiwanese journalists accreditation raises two troubling questions. The first deals with Taiwan’s ability and right to receive timely information pertaining to the health of its citizens. Once again we can turn to the WHO’s own charter to see that keeping Taiwan out of the information loop is against the spirit, if not the letter of the WHO’s stated commitment to health. The constitution’s preface states that “[i]nformed opinion and active cooperation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of the people.” As I discussed in my last entry, the Taiwan government’s ability to communicate and share data with the WHO continues to be degraded by the month. As bad as this is, the argument could be made that these communications could also be made via other channels like the media. The Geneva office’s decision to deny Taiwan’s reporters access to the WHA and its policy-planning sessions closes that remaining channel, leaving Taiwan dependent on second- or third-hand information about these meetings and unable to form the very “informed opinions” on public health that the WHO hopes to provide the world’s people.

The diary coincides with a renewed drive by Taiwan's foreign ministry to enter the WHO. The GIO unveiled a new ad yesterday:

The Government Information Office (GIO) yesterday unveiled a new advertisement to promote the nation's bid to participate in the WHO.

On the advertisement, WHO is written as "WHC," with the "C" representing an incomplete "O" to deliver the message that as Taiwan is not yet a member, the organization is not complete.

"As you can see, on the advertisement, WHO is written as `WHC' because Taiwan is not in the organization so the `O' is not complete," GIO deputy minister William Yih (易榮宗) said.

The WHO Secretariat rejected Taiwan's latest bid to participate in the organization on April 25 after President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) sent a letter on April 11 to WHO Director-General Margaret Chan (陳馮富珍) asking that the country be allowed to join the health body.

There was also a small demonstration in front of the American Institute in Taiwan, hoping to attract US support for the island's WHO bid.

[Taiwan] [China] [US] [WHO] [UN]

EU Parliamentarian Says Taiwan should beef up its defense

Taiwan's parliament was informed again that it should purchase weapons.....

A European parliamentarian urged Taiwan yesterday to bolster its defense capabilities while acknowledging that the EU would not intervene militarily should China attempt to take Taiwan by force because it would be outside Europe's regional security responsibility.

Dr. Georg Jarzembowski, the head of the Taiwan Friendship Group of the European Parliament, said Taiwan needed to act in procuring weapons to defend itself to be taken seriously on security issues in the rest of the world.

"If the people of Taiwan feel threatened by 900 missiles across the Straits, people from the outside would say what are the Taiwanese doing to defend themselves," Jarzembowski said. "Then you would wonder how long it takes until the (Taiwan's) parliament takes a decision on these questions."

Jarzembowski has long been a Taiwan advocate and more power to him. We need people to advocate for Taiwan in Europe. But it would behoove the good Dr. Jarzembowski to put some study into the issues. Taiwan is quite serious about procuring arms from abroad, being generally among the top five arms importers among the world's developed nations. I wish Taiwan's friends would instead focus on the real issue: the perfidious behavior of the pro-China side, with perhaps a nod to the problems the US has created as well. If you're going to hack on Taiwan, at least direct your hacks at something useful.

One long-term goal of the pro-China side is to drive a wedge between the West and Taiwan, and especially, between the West and the pro-Taiwan parties. Each time someone outside of Taiwan blames "Taiwan" for the arms purchase impasse, this strategy is rewarded. Time to pinpoint our attacks on the source of the problem, instead of on some abstraction called "Taiwan."

[Taiwan] [China] [US] [submarines] [arms purchase] [European Union]