Meanwhile, the UN crap continues....

Any day I see a walking stick is a good day.

A local journalist sent this around. They were applying to attend the ICAO. As another discussant observed, the newspaper this reporter represents is not affiliated with a Taiwanese new agency and thus there are no grounds whatsoever for rejection.

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

Good afternoon,

With respect to your request for accreditation to attend the 38th Session of the ICAO Assembly, ICAO continues to conduct itself in accordance with the United Nations’ one-China policy and our unit is unfortunately not permitted to accredit media directly affiliated to Taiwanese news agencies while this policy remains in place.

We regret any inconvenience this may cause.


Sincerely,

Sue-Ann Rapattoni
Communications Unit
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
_______________________
[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 Farce Reaches Next Level

Letter from Minister of Health, ROC, to WHO, about the name mess. Click on them to go to Flickr to see larger version.

The Ma Administration's response to the WHO flap reached a new low as the Minister of Health -- well, I'd like to say fired off a letter but I really don't know what verb phrase to reach for here. Anyway, somehow this marvelous communication was forwarded to its proper recipient, and was duly made public, where it immediately became the target of widespread laughter.

For it shows, more brilliantly than a PhD-length piece ever could, the Ma gov'ts contortions in trying to serve Beijing and get elected at the same time.

In the English translation, whenever the term "the nation", "our country", etc appears in the Chinese, the Minister substitutes "my" and "I" and "our". For example, the opening sentence in Chinese expresses the nation's utmost dissatisfaction with a policy that was no doubt negotiated by the KMT in the first place, in the English version, "I" am expressing utmost dissatisfaction. Similarly, down in paragraph six, "our nation's delegation" becomes "my delegation."

In paragraph two there is an interesting moment -- the term ROC is never used and the sovereignty of that nation is never insisted upon -- indeed, the author never names what nation he represents -- in English the writer refers to "the Department of Health of Chinese Taipei" but in Chinese the mysterious, never to be named nation appears as "Our nation's Department of Health". Taiwan appears a couple of times in the stock phrase "23 million people of Taiwan," as well as "Taiwan and its adjacent waterways and islands" and of course in the complaint itself. His signature says he is an official of "Chinese Taipei."

It is hard to imagine what the government was thinking -- did they not realize that anyone could compare the two letters to see how they handled the issue of ROC/Taiwan sovereignty and how they represented themselves to the WHO? Didn't any of the political appointees think of the coming election? Because it sure looks like they were stumbling over themselves to appease Beijing. Indeed, Ma himself, and his administration, often appear weak and floundering -- here was an opportunity to act tough at no cost, since the WHO isn't going to change its policy on Taiwan. Instead, they weaseled, and confirmed everyone's worst opinions.

Lost in this attempt to fog over what Taiwan is, the Minister is dead right on one point: the WHO is in violation of its own regulations in placing responsibility for the health of the Taiwanese with Beijing rather than with the Taiwan government (see paragraph 2). The WHO looks even worse for the wear.

Amazingly, a US official actually weighed in on the debate, even with a gaggle of Chinese brass in the US to re-establish mil-mil ties. Yes, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, had a few words for the WHO:

US Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said yesterday that no UN agency has the right to unilaterally determine Taiwan’s status. Sebelius’ remarks came amid ongoing controversy over Taiwan’s designation in the WHO.


“We have made it very clear to the WHO and I think the United States’ position is that no organization of the UN has a right to unilaterally determine the position of Taiwan,” Sebelius said on the sidelines of the World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva when asked by press about the matter. “It needs to be a resolution that includes China and Taiwan in a discussion and we would very much welcome that road forward.”

We made it clear to the UN appears to be an oblique reference to the flap in 2008 when then-President Chen Shui-bian sent a letter to UN Sec-Gen Ban Ki-moon indicating Taiwan's interest in joining the world body and Ban erroneously responded that Taiwan was considered part of China by the UN. The US warned Ban that this was not the position of the United States nor other powers. Note that Sebelius' remarks are a version of the US position that the status of Taiwan is undetermined and that the issue must be settled peacefully -- kudos either to her for understanding this or to whoever briefed her. And thanks to whoever decided to permit her to say something.
_______________________ 
[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.

Georgia=Taiwan, Saakashvili=Chen...

Richard Bush and Kenneth Lieberthal, both probable future advisors to future President Obama, have another piece on the Georgia-Taiwan comparison, this time in the Wall Street Journal. The fundamental premises of this piece are similar to those of the Jeff Bader/Douglas Paal essay that I looked at a week ago, but WSJ has finally taken the important step of noting that one of the writers, Ken Lieberthal, has business interests in China, something the media almost never does. Kudos to WSJ for doing that! Please note that I have no objection to people having business interests in China, just to that fact being left out of their background when they comment on US-China policy.

The underlying premises of this article are the bogus ones of Mad Chen^©, provoker of worlds, the great bogeyman of US foreign policy. Bush and Lieberthal argue that if the US had not restrained Chen, he might have provoked a war with China. Yeah, my Dad used to hang garlic on the trees when we went camping, saying it would keep the bears away. And we never saw a single bear in our campsite, either.....

Yet in recent years, the basic dynamics of the two countries have been remarkably similar. Both have had politically skillful, democratically elected heads of state who were determined to consolidate the independent identity and sovereignty of the territory they ruled. Each confronted a major power -- Russia for Georgia and China for Taiwan -- that felt it had legitimate historical rights to curtail the full exercise of sovereignty by the feisty smaller government. And each appealed to the United States for support. The leaders of Taiwan and Georgia had reason to believe they had a strong ally in President George W. Bush, who had declared a robust agenda of promoting democracy and freedom. They were acting, they said, to realize the democratic aspirations of their people.

The problem is that the Georgia-Taiwan comparison is spurious -- Taiwan is a lot more like South Ossetia than Georgia itself. No one disputed the sovereignty of Georgia itself, at issue was the sovereignty of the breakaway region of South Ossetia --just as what is at issue here is whether Taiwan can enjoy its own sovereignty. Just to keep playing that game, South Ossetia even held a referendum on independence that was condemned by the western democracies, just as Chen Shui-bian had referendums that were (shamefully and cravenly) condemned by the western democracies. Onward and upward....

.....Georgia has become the scene of the most serious post-Cold War great-power conflict, while recent political change in Taiwan has greatly enhanced cross-Strait stability and provides reason for optimism about the future.

There is no reason for optimism about the election of Ma Ying-jeou -- unless your policy is to annex the island to China. But that is not the worst part of this piece.... first comes a substantial misrepresentation of US behavior:

But over time Mr. Bush moved to a more tempered approach that increasingly took into serious account Beijing's concerns as well as Taiwan's pleadings. He recognized that the most serious threat to Taiwan was conflict through miscalculation, as an independence-leaning political initiative by Taiwan's president Chen Shui-bian might provoke a Chinese military attack, whether justified or not. The Bush administration therefore developed a nuanced American policy that publicly put the United States squarely in opposition to any unilateral change to the status quo by either Beijing or Taipei.

Read that last statement carefully. The Administration's actual policy (nuanced policy, mind you!) was not opposition to unilateral change in the status quo by either side -- it was loud opposition to Taiwan's democracy on one side, and quiet acquiescence in China's military build up in other. This produced the obscene picture of US spokesmen using the same language to condemn Taiwan's democratic referendum on the UN -- which could never succeed -- as it did to condemn the Anti-secession Law, and more importantly, to scream at Chen Shui-bian in unseemly, exaggerated ways, while only whimpering now and then as China's military build-up made radical revisions to the status quo.

In other words, Bush's policy was not a preservation of the status quo but a response to China's change of it, and that response was to serve China's interests by hacking on Taiwan. But that is not the worst of this piece:

In Taiwan, by contrast, 2008 has witnessed the election of a moderate leader, Ma Ying-jeou, whose electoral prospects were bolstered in part by America's clear indications of its displeasure with the willingness of former president Mr. Chen to provoke China. Under President Ma we are seeing hopeful initiatives to stabilize cross-Strait relations in ways that hold out the prospect for improving Taiwan's economy, reducing the military threat from China, preserving Taiwan's democratic system of governance, and increasing America's capacity to work with China on the North Korea nuclear issue and other serious international concerns.

Here Bush and Lieberthal brag about how the US helped get a longtime democracy activist, independence advocate, and friend of the US removed from office, to be replaced by a pro-China, lifelong anti-democracy politician who patronizes the US, despises our regional ally Japan, and wants to see Taiwan annexed to China. In the topsy-turvy world of US Establishment China policy, progress is when you blow a hole in the security system you spent 50 years assembling and nurturing. And just this week China announced that it was beginning to train carrier pilots....

Skipping over the pro-forma claim "Chen provokes China," look at the other claims Bush and Lieberthal make:

Under President Ma we are seeing hopeful initiatives to stabilize cross-Strait relations in ways that hold out the prospect for improving Taiwan's economy, reducing the military threat from China, preserving Taiwan's democratic system of governance

What is there to say? The "initiatives" that Ma is taking in cross-strait relations are almost all DPP initiatives, though they were negotiating from a much stronger position than President Regional Administrator Ma. The ideas that Ma has offered independently, such as the diplomatic truce, have been failures to the present and appear likely to fail permanently - indeed, from what I have heard from individuals interacting with Chinese officials and scholars, there has been a uniform hardening of the Chinese position since Ma was elected. The Chinese simply do not see any reason to give Ma anything, and it appears likely that they will not. Perhaps things will change, but at this point there is no reason to suspect China will mature (see the recent letter on participation in UN special agencies from the Chinese government smacking down Ma). Mayhap the US will put pressure on it to make some cosmetic concessions, which will be trumpeted by one and all as progress.

In other words, political change here has not enhanced stability in the Taiwan Strait as Bush and Lieberthal claim -- instead it has introduced new instabilities and uncertainties by giving China the upper hand and sacrificing the interests of US allies Japan and Taiwan, as well as introducing the new and ominously opaque uncertainty: how far is Ma willing to go? But as we all know, the greatness of a realpolitik decision is measured by the number of friends it betrays....

Moreover, Ma is not the one running the KMT talks with China -- those appear to be in the hands of other politicians within the KMT who have long been negotiating through back-channels with China. Thus "stability" is an illusion -- no one really knows what is being said in the private KMT-Beijing talks, or what the limits are. Scary, eh? But at least there won't be any more of those dangerous and provocative referendums, which are so much like shelling civilians.

UPDATE: One thing I wanted to draw attention to is the tone of these recent pieces on Georgia and Taiwan. There's almost a defensive flavor to this stream of writing with its attacks on Chen and justifications for the Establishment's we've-brought-order-to-the-galaxy position -- as if, deep down, people know that what was done was not right.

[Taiwan]

Text of China's UN smackdown of Ma

Here is the text of the entire letter from China on Taiwan's participation in UN specialized agencies, smacking down Ma:

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

Letter dated 18 August 2008 from the Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General With reference to the letter submitted by Nauru, the Gambia and a very few other countries on 14 August 2008 on the so-called "Taiwan’s participation in the activities of United Nations specialized agencies", I have been instructed to solemnly state China’s position as follows:

1. By raising the so-called proposal on "Taiwan’s participation in the activities of United Nations specialized agencies", Nauru, the Gambia and a very few other countries intend to create "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan". This is a violation of China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and interference in China’s internal affairs, and is thus firmly opposed by the Chinese Government and people. Such practice runs counter to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations as well as the constitutions and statutes of specialized agencies of the United Nations system. It is also detrimental to the prevailing good momentum in the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations.

2. There is only one China in the world. No matter what changes occur in cross-Strait relations, China’s adherence to the one China principle will never change. For historical and other reasons, the mainland and the Taiwan region are not yet reunited, but the fact that the two sides belong to one and the same China has never changed. As China is the shared homeland of the Chinese people across the Taiwan Strait, the 23 million Taiwan compatriots are important components of the Chinese nation, and people on the two sides of the Strait share the same blood and destiny.

3. The United Nations and its specialized agencies are intergovernmental organizations composed only of sovereign States. This is clearly stipulated in the Charter of the United Nations and the constitutions and statutes of the specialized agencies. The so-called "principle of universality" is also based on sovereign States. As a part of China, Taiwan is not a sovereign State. The claim by a very few countries that specialized agencies should allow the Taiwan region to "participate" in their activities under the "principle of universality" is unfounded. Since 1993, the General Committee and successive sessions of the General Assembly have rejected the motion on the so-called "Taiwan’s participation" or "membership" in the United Nations tabled by a very few countries each year. Since 1997, the Executive Board of the World Health Organization (WHO) and successive sessions of the World Health Assembly have also rejected the motion tabled each year by a very few countries on Taiwan’s "membership" or "participation" in the World Health Assembly as an observer. Facts have amply proved that the Taiwan region is not eligible to "participate" in the activities of specialized agencies.

4. The Chinese Government attaches great importance to the well-being of the 23 million Taiwan compatriots and understands their aspiration for and feeling about participating in international activities. The Chinese Government is never opposed to commercial and cultural exchanges and cooperation between the Taiwan region and other parts of the world. In 2005, on the basis of the one China principle, the Chinese Government reached with the Secretariat of the World Health Organization a memorandum of understanding, which provides facilitation to medical experts of the Taiwan region in their participation in WHO technical conferences and activities. The Taiwan region has unfettered access to health and medical information of the World Health Organization. The Chinese Government has also adopted a fully flexible and constructive attitude towards Taiwan’s participation in multilateral activities in organizations such as the World Trade Organization and APEC.

5. Since March this year, thanks to the concerted efforts of people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, cross-Strait relations have shown a good momentum of improvement and development. Under the new circumstances, we will firmly adhere to the theme of peaceful development in cross-Strait relations, and continue to enhance our exchanges and cooperation in all areas. It is true that there are still some outstanding questions left over from history and some of them are hard nuts to crack for the time being. But we anticipate that the two sides will make joint efforts, under the one China principle, towards the establishment of a framework for peaceful development of cross-Strait relations and strive for a new prospect in the relationship.

As an internal affair of the Chinese people, the participation of Taiwan compatriots in international activities should be resolved through consultation by the Chinese people across the Taiwan Strait. We are fully confident that, so long as the two sides work together in a spirit of "building mutual trust, putting aside differences, seeking common ground and striving for a win-win result", we will surely be able to create conditions and find an appropriate solution through consultation.

6. The Chinese Government urges Nauru, the Gambia and a very few other countries to observe the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, especially the principles of respecting State sovereignty and territorial integrity and non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs, and comply with the constitutions and statutes of specialized agencies. We urge them to stop doing things that undermine China’s interests and hurt the feelings of the Chinese people, and refrain from creating obstacles to the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations. We hope Member States will continue to adhere to the one China principle, appreciate and support the efforts made by the Chinese Government to maintain peaceful development of cross-Strait relations, and work concertedly to safeguard peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region and the world as a whole.

I have the honour to request that the present letter be circulated as a document of the General Assembly, under item 112 of the provisional agenda.

(Signed) Wang Guangya
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and Permanent Representative of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations

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

Ma's policies to gain international space appear to be destined for failure, at least at this point. But observe how both the PRC and Ma use the same language in referring to Taiwan -- "Taiwan region" and "Chinese people on both sides of the Strait" etc. Scary.

[Taiwan]

Momentous News

First, Chinese language press is reporting that Chen Shui-bian and his wife are leaving the DPP (UDN):

前總統陳水扁今天發表退黨聲明表示，民主進步黨承擔了多少人共同的夢想與苦難，但他犯了錯，做了不應該做的事，深感愧疚與自責；宣布即刻起與太太吳淑珍退出民主進步黨。

UPDATE: AFP in English. Note on that: Prosecutors found receipts for a ring, because the new accounting rules, instituted specifically for Chen as a way to reign in his authority, said he had to submit receipts for secret expenditures. No, I kid you not. So apparently they simply submitted any old receipt. No, I kid you not.

...and this very same day AP reports that Taiwan is not going to attempt to join the UN, but will instead attempt to gain representation in UN agencies. Ma has totally rolled over for China; let's see if they give him any crumbs in return.

[Taiwan]

The Road to Taipei Goes Through Washington

Ting-i Tsai, a longtime and always excellent commentator on Taiwan affairs, had another choice piece in the Asia Times on Beijing's use of Washington to suppress Taiwan:

Unlike its previous approach of directly threatening Taiwan over its holding of referendums in 2004, Beijing pressured Washington this time around to deliver its message.

"Beijing's approach is brand new and totally different from the past," said a former senior Taiwanese cross-strait affairs official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The official contended that the DPP government had failed to recognize the change and come up with a way to counter it.

Beijing has repeatedly warned Washington since 2005 that Taiwan would likely declare independence before President Chen steps down in May 2008. Chinese officials suggested numerous scenarios under which this would happen to their Washington counterparts, including Taiwan's declaring independence by adopting a new constitution, President Chen's creating an incident in the Taiwan Strait to escalate tension, and simply declaring independence based on a positive outcome in the UN-bid referendum.

Tsai observes that China's strategy was to keep acting as though it would cause a war in the Strait, to force Washington to push Taipei into its arms:

According to an article by Shi Yinhong, professor of International Relations at Renmin University, Beijing started to shift away from its policy of harshly condemning Taiwan between 2000 and 2001. At the same time, Beijing concluded that it should gradually convince the administrations in the White House through the upcoming administrations to accept the unification of China, and have Washington make a political choice between Taipei and Beijing.

"China should prepare for war with a serious and determined attitude, and continually maintain and escalate American's fears and concerns over a war across the Strait," Shi wrote. "This would be a crucial reason for the US to slowly accept China's unification."

The US cooperation with authoritarian China to suppress a democratic Taiwan is not explicitly mentioned by any of the US commentators. Instead, they they put the blame on Taiwan -- Washington's weakness has nothing to do with its stupidity in invading Iraq and its destruction of our moral high ground:

"It [Washington] tried every way it could to convince President Chen not to go forward with this process, but he did so against our advice. Why would Washington accept a process that leads to an outcome it opposes?" Bush noted.

Alan Romberg, senior associate and director of the East Asia Program at the Henry L Stimson Center, echoed Bush's view by arguing, "Now that they [DPP] see the potential consequences, it is simply too late to rewind the clock."

Whether the DPP can come up with a third referendum backed by both parties remains to be seen, but some pro-KMT academics have warned that the KMT would suffer from even worse diplomatic isolation if its presidential candidate were to win the March election but the referendums failed to pass.

According to an analyst close to the DPP, holding a referendum that could explicitly detail the desire of Taiwan's people for international space would be its preferred scenario at present.

We're not sure what outcome is occurring here that Washington opposes, since China can stop any actual entry of Taiwan into the UN with its trusty security council veto. Apparently Washington opposes the possibility that at some point someone may try to enter the UN under the name "Taiwan." Now correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Chen Shui-bian send a letter to the UN asking to enter under the name "Taiwan" back in July, and didn't the earth continue to rotate on its axis after this event occurred?

I'm just checking....although, to be fair, it is true that Washington had to "secretly" correct the UN Sec.-gen's erroneous claim that Taiwan was part of China.

Tsai cites Bonnie Glaser at the end for an opinion that is apparently quite common in official Washington:

In a presentation given in Washington recently, Bonnie Glaser, senior associate at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, suggested that Beijing recognizes that it will face unprecedented challenges in responding to Taiwan's demands for greater international space and reductions in its military threat toward Taiwan in a meaningful way if the candidate Beijing apparently favors, the KMT's Ma Ying-jeou, wins the presidential election.

The answer to Dr. Glaser is that no, there will be no unprecedented challenges, because the KMT and the CCP have been talking to each other since the mid-1990s about just this moment. Instead, scripted events will occur, stage-managed by both sides. Is it that Official Washington does not get how tightly Beijing and the KMT are interlaced? Or do they just not care if Ma puts Taiwan into Beijing's orbit and totally destabilizes the security position of the US in the region (think of the conundrum Japan faces if Taiwan turns toward Beijing)? My money's on door number 2, there, though several knowledgeable people have said the first choice is the correct one: the Bush Administration doesn't get it.

One of the international correspondents pointed out to me that the day after the Presidential swearing-in here there's a vote on Taiwan's next application to the WHO, which will be a test for President Ma (if indeed Ma wins). What will he do when the PRC refuses him? I would argue that this isn't going to be a test. Either the PRC will throw Ma a bone and let Taiwan in to make Ma look like a winner -- which wouldn't surprise me in the least, it would be one smart short-term move (Beijing can always get Taipei expelled later if necessary) or else the KMT and the CCP will agree on a script for handling it so that Ma accepts it. But there won't be any surprises....and watch as Ma cooperates with Beijing in further reducing Taiwan's international space.

UPDATE: Don't miss this fantastic article on Kosovo that a reader turned me on to, from Christopher Hitchens in Slate. One of the many money quotes:

It's a shame, in retrospect, that it took us so long to diagnose the pathology of Serbia's combination of arrogance and self-pity, in which what is theirs is theirs and what is anybody else's is negotiable.

Anyone recognize a state like that in Asia? Anyone?

[Taiwan]

Other Nations' Independence and Taiwan

This week the media brings us two tales of independence that are Taiwan-connected, one from India, one from Kosovo. A reader alerted me to this piece in the International Herald Tribune on the issues that independence for Kosovo creates for China. To wit:

Kosovo may be geographically removed from East Asia but what happens there could have potential implications for Taiwan. Taipei strongly supported the NATO intervention in 1999 and pledged $300 million in aid to Kosovar Albanian refugees. Taiwan's "dollar diplomacy" has won it recognition as a sovereign state from a small number of countries, mostly in Latin America and Africa, that benefit from Taiwanese investment and aid.

Unemployment in Kosovo hovers at about 60 percent; much of the province's natural resources cannot be developed without massive infusions of capital. Generous offers of aid from Taiwan might be tempting for Kosovo's leadership, especially if Russia blocks Kosovo's membership in the United Nations and other international organizations.

Despite repeated assurances from Washington and the capitals of Europe that the emergence of an independent Kosovo sets no precedent - and the United States continues to publicly object to any unilateral change in the status quo over Taiwan - a unilateral declaration of independence by Pristina would definitely be exploited by independence-leaning candidates in Taiwan's presidential elections in March, further exacerbating strained relations between China and Taiwan.

So the Kosovo issue could unexpectedly crop up as a real problem in East Asia.

One way to avoid any crisis would be for Beijing to move quickly to recognize Kosovo's independence, and match any offer made by Taipei. This seems unlikely, however. Beijing has signaled in the past that it would want a new UN resolution to replace UNSC 1244 - something unlikely to occur in the face of continued Russian opposition. And trying to buy Kosovo's support might be too expensive for China, since Taiwan will undoubtedly make generous aid offers.

Another would be for the United States and the European Union to use their own significant political and financial leverage to persuade the Kosovar leadership to spurn any Taiwanese offer - but Taipei has shown in the past that it is willing to spend a great deal to gain recognition. Moreover, many in Kosovo feel that there is a pro-Serb tilt in Beijing. Why turn down concrete aid if a new UN resolution is not forthcoming?

As noted before in these pages, the US has been supporting independence for Kosovo despite strong objections from Russia. The parallel with Taiwan, where the US has been objecting to independence in concert with objections from another great power, China, is clear. However, I doubt very much that Kosovo will become a serious election issue here in Taiwan.

+++++++++

I blogged before on Indian independence hero Subhas Chandra Bose (Wiki). Bose died in Taiwan in an aircraft crash on Aug 18, 1945. He had raised an army of Indians to fight the British under the Japanese, believing that Gandhi's non-violent approach would not work.

For many years there had been rumors that Bose hadn't actually died in the crash, but out of Qatar comes the report of the real story of his final moments, with the release of secret papers from half a century ago:

Under the 2005 Right to Information Act, India has released documents that appear to prove that he died in the air crash on August 18, 1945. They include a report from the Counter Intelligence Corps, which questioned Habib ur Rahman, a close aide of Bose, who was among survivors of the crash.

The report, dated September 29, 1945, quotes Rahman as saying that the aircraft vibrated violently and burst into flames soon after leaving Taihoku (now Taipei), the capital of Formosa (Taiwan). “The seat Bose occupied in the aircraft was beside a petrol tank; at the time of the crash the tank exploded, spreading the burning fuel on Bose’s clothing,” it says.

The documents were released at the request of Mission Netaji, a Delhi-based group of amateur historians. Anuj Dhar, its founder, told The Times that the Government had refused initially, on the ground that the documents could stir unrest in India. He did not doubt the authenticity of the documents but said that the information could have been concocted to mislead the Allies.

The Netaji Research Bureau in Kolkata disagreed. Krishna Bose, 77, the widow of Bose’s nephew and the president of the bureau, said that the documents simply confirmed what Rahman and other survivors had said many times. Bose’s supporters regard him as a pragmatic freedom fighter who tried to evict a foreign power by seeking help from the only available sources.

Bose is another one of those fascinating might-have-beens that make history so interesting....

[Taiwan] [India] [China] [Kosovo]

Bruce Jacobs' Open Letter to Hsieh and Ma

This morning Apple Daily published an open letter from respected Taiwan scholar Bruce Jacobs, directed at the two presidential candidates.

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

An Open Letter to Frank Hsieh and Ma Ying-jeou
(給謝長廷和馬英九一封公開信)

By Bruce Jacobs (家博)

Over eighty per cent of the residents of Taiwan (台灣住民) want this country （本國）to be a member of the United Nations. As both of you have recognized in the past, this country is a sovereign nation （有主權的國家）. According to international law, the best definition of a sovereign nation appears in the “Convention On Rights And Duties Of States” signed in Montevideo on December 26, 1933. According to this Treaty, a sovereign state has four characteristics: “a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” This nation clearly has all four of these characteristics. In addition, the people of this nation freely and democratically elect the nation’s government.

This clear unity among the people of this nation in desiring to participate in the United Nations has been lost in partisan bickering. I urge you both to put aside partisan interests and to concentrate on national interests.

In order to demonstrate to the world the desire of the people of this nation to belong to the United Nations, I would urge you both to reach a three-point agreement:

1. In discussing membership of the United Nations, you put aside the issue of “name” and do not refer to “Taiwan” or the “Republic of China.” In discussing membership of the United Nations, you can both refer to “this country” （本國）.
2. In discussing membership of the United Nations, you put aside the issue of whether this country shall “join the United Nations” (入聯) or “return to the United Nations (返聯).” Rather, you can both refer to “participating in the United Nations” (參加聯合國).
3. You both urge all voters to support both UN referenda in the March 22 election.

With both of you supporting the two referenda, it is highly likely that both referenda will pass. This will send an important message to the world community that this nation is a sovereign nation that both wants and deserves to be a member of the United Nations. On the contrary, failing to pass the two referenda would send exactly the wrong message to the world community.

Such an agreement between the two of you would also go far towards diminishing political division in this nation and help to forge a new national unity.

Respectfully yours,

J. Bruce Jacobs (家博)

作者為澳洲蒙納士大學亞洲語言與研究講座教授暨台灣研究室主任.

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

Good luck. Based on the election results, I see a lot of pious words but little real cooperation on this. Further, since the KMT is working with China, it doesn't seem very likely. And then there is the Bush Administration, which issued another round of attacks on the UN referendum just prior to the election.

[Taiwan]

Referendums in the news

Happy New Year to all! Use the day off to peruse the newly uploaded back issues of Taiwan Communique from 1982 and 1983, or stand outside in this polar weather (current death toll: 22) to watch the Quandrantid meteor shower this week, peaking on Friday, but good viewing pre-dawn on 4th or 5th. Or you can watch Taiwan's favorite spectator sport, referendum flogging....

...this week the KMT said it would boycott the Jan 12 referendum on party assets.

"Referendums, as a sacred [democratic tool], have been twisted and kidnapped [by the DPP] and have become a tool to provoke conflict. Therefore, we sadly decided today to urge voters to boycott the [two] referendums [on Jan. 12]," KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) told a press conference.

"This is a very painful decision for us," he said.

Wu said the party did not rule out the possibility of boycotting the two UN-membership referendums -- one by the DPP to join the UN using the name "Taiwan" and the other by the KMT to "return" to the UN using the nation's official title "Republic of China" -- scheduled to be held with the presidential election on March 22.

It's always ironic to read the pious remarks of KMT bigwigs on democracy, since so many of them got to high places due to the KMT's own longtime opposition to it. In fact Wu Po-hsiung's uncle was murdered by the KMT, as I recall.

The March 22 referendum on UN entry, which the KMT is also considering boycotting, has been under a steady barrage of fire in the world media and from foreign governments, the latest pronunciamento coming from Japan. Today the Ministry of Foreign Affairs here produced a corrected version of the Japanese statement:

Japan has recently explained that it "does not oppose" the plan to hold a referendum on its bid for a seat in the UN under the name Taiwan, but hopes the referendum will not raise tension in the Taiwan Strait, a senior Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) official said yesterday.

Japan told the ministry that it will not support the planned referendum "if it leads [Taiwan] to take unilateral action to change the `status quo,'" said Huang Ju-hou (黃諸侯), chief executive officer of the MOFA Committee on Japanese Affairs.

Huang made the remarks in an interview in response to questions about Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda's comment on the UN-bid referendum during a visit he made to China last week.

The comment drew international attention and speculation, with Fukuda reported to be opposed to the holding of the referendum along with the March 22 presidential election.

In addition to the use of referendums and boycotts, more and more this election is picking up themes from previous elections -- like allegations of corruption against leading candidates. In his article on the Ma decision, Max Hirsch of Kyodo had this set of misleading set of statements from Shelly Rigger, often quoted in the international media, on the Ma exoneration:

''Part of Ma's appeal has always been the widespread belief that he is personally clean, no matter what the rest of his party is doing,'' said Shelley Rigger, a Taiwan expert at North Carolina's Davidson College.

''A lot of his fans are saying, 'We told you he was innocent, and now the courts say so, too,''' Rigger said.

Although Hsieh ''has dodged a bullet with the special allowances indictments,'' numerous other cases continue to ''swirl around him,'' while Ma appears to be in the clear, she said. Prosecutors continue to investigate Hsieh's campaign finances and other graft allegations, according to local media.

A last-minute indictment of the DPP frontrunner could torpedo his campaign in light of Ma's legal victory, all but ensuring a Nationalist Party victory at the presidential polls next year.

''Overall, the lesson...is, using the judiciary to rough up your political opponents is risky, risky, risky,'' Rigger added.

Rigger apparently is unaware that corruption cases also swirl around Ma, with more still to come. But they are unnecessary. What we're doing here is flashing back to 2000, when Lee Teng-hui released the news that then frontrunner James Soong had allegedly skimmed millions and transferred them to the US. Soong would not be convicted -- no one is ever convicted -- but his image took a hit, and he eventually lost the election by 3% of the vote. Similarly, only the totally uninformed ever thought Ma would be convicted, and now only True Believers can imagine that Ma is not corrupt, for crucially, he admitted downloading the funds and using them for private use. Rigger appears to have missed the political import of that.

Further, Rigger's claim that using the judiciary to rough up your opponents is "risky" must be laughed at -- it cost the KMT nothing to hack on Soong in 2000, the attacks on Chen Shui-bian and his family over the last two years were very successful in damaging the administration and cost the pan-Blues nothing, and now, at no cost to the DPP, Ma has been shown to be just like everyone else (that was indeed his defense: everyone does it) and it is now a matter of public record. One also remembers more minor victims of apparent prosecutorial put up jobs, like Dr. Hsieh of the Tainan Science park sound damping system case. That too cost the pan-Blues nothing.....it is pure pro-KMT spin to see the Ma Exoneration as a DPP defeat.

Corruption revelations... boycotts of the referendum... referendums to bring out the voters... more formula from previous campaigns still to come.

[Taiwan]

Presbyterian Church in Taiwan's UN Declaration

Jerome Keating passed me the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan's UN Declaration. Here it is in two languages -- spread the word:

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

Declaration of the Right for Taiwan to Join the United Nations

To the member states of the United Nations, the peoples and nations of the world who love justice and peace, and to all churches around the world.

On the eve of the fifty-ninth anniversary of the United Nations’ “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and in the spirit of our 1977 “Declaration on Human Rights” and our 1985 “Confession of Faith”, we declare:

Since the end of World War II in 1945, colonized peoples of the world have been exercising the basic human right of self-determination, thus becoming independent nations. The 23 million people of Taiwan remain the exception in that their inalienable right to statehood has been ignored or even actively opposed by member states of the United Nations. Clearly, the spirit of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” has not been implemented worldwide. This overt neglect is an injustice and an outright violation of the human rights of the Taiwanese people.

Though the Taiwanese people had been successively ruled by foreign colonial powers, in 1996, they were able for the first time to directly elect a president in a democratic procedure that achieved a bloodless and peaceful revolution. Moreover they were even able to complete a peaceful transfer of power in 2000. A native Taiwanese administration led by the Democratic Progressive Party replaced the Chinese Nationalist (KMT) regime which had implemented their colonial rule over Taiwan for several decades by means of martial law. As a result of this change the Taiwanese people today express a strong demand to join the United Nations using the name “Taiwan”.

However, China, the superpower to the west of Taiwan, has repeatedly exerted its emerging influence on the international community to violate, suppress, and isolate Taiwan in a way that has brutally oppressed the Taiwanese people and their fundamental rights. Despite being grieved and incensed by this degradation, we stand on the belief that human rights are ordained by God and that Taiwan has the right to membership in the United Nations so that the dignity of the Taiwanese people will be upheld by the international community.

Therefore we solemnly make this appeal to the world. We urge all to courageously support the Taiwanese people, who have been left on the outside, and open the door to United Nations membership so that hand in hand together we can promote justice and peace throughout the world.

"The Lord has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" (Micah 6:8)

May God bless the United Nations, peoples and churches around the world. Amen.


The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan
Moderator: Rev. Dr. James Kheng-chiong Phoann 潘慶彰 (signed)
General Secretary: Rev. Andrew Tek-khiam Tiunn 張德謙 (signed)
December 7th, 2007


「台灣有權加入聯合國」宣言

致聯合國各會員國代表、世界愛好公義和平的國家人民、與普世教會：

在聯合國發表「世界人權宣言」滿五十九年之前夕，台灣基督長老教會根據1977年「人權宣言」與1985年「台灣基督長老教會信仰告白」之精神，發表如下宣言：

自1945年第二次世界大戰結束後，世界各殖民地的人民，紛紛行使自決的基本人權，取得獨立地位。惟獨台灣兩千三百萬人民，直到今日其應有的國際人格仍被忽視，被排除於聯合國大門之外。這不只突顯出聯合國「世界人權宣言」仍未在全世界落實，更是對臺灣人民基本人權的侵害。

臺灣人民雖然不斷受外來政權的殖民統治，卻能經由不流血的民主程序，在1996年第一次由人民直選台灣的總統。更於2000年在和平中完成政權轉移，由台灣本土政權「民主進步黨」執政，替換以戒嚴殖民統治台灣數十年的「中國國民黨」，今日台灣人民強烈要求以台灣的名義加入聯合國。

然而，台灣西邊的強權中國以霸權影響國際社會，一再污辱、打壓並執意孤立台灣，致使台灣人民的基本人權被踐踏。對此，我們感到悲憤，但仍確信人權是上帝所賜。台灣有權加入聯合國，使台灣人民的尊嚴受到國際社會應有的尊重。

為此，我們謹誠懇、嚴肅地向聯合國各會員國代表、世界愛好公義和平的國家人民、與普世教會呼籲，請勇敢挺身為被排拒於聯合國門外的臺灣人民主持正義，支持並促成台灣成為聯合國的會員國，共同促進公義與世界和平。

「世人哪，上主已指示你何為善，祂向你所要的是什麼呢？只要你行公義、好憐憫，存謙卑的心，與你的上帝同行。」（彌迦書六：8）

願上帝賜福聯合國、世界各國人民、與普世教會。阿門！

台灣基督長老教會總會

議 長 Phoann Kheng-chiong. 潘慶彰 (signed)

總幹事 Tiunn Tek-khiam 張德謙 (signed)

2007年12月7日

[Taiwan]

Sec Rice's Comments

Jerome Keating reminds that Sec Rice's comments that the referendum is a "provocation" may be responded to at the following email addresses:

http://contact-us.state.gov/cgi-bin/state.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php?

comments@whitehouse.gov

Be nice when you talk to the Administration, I'm sure it will be a new experience for them..... Alton Thompson over at Conductor's Notebook has a good response:

Dear Secretary Rice:

Like many Americans living in Taiwan I think your recent statement is a provocative action. It unnecessarily raises tensions between the democratic ideals Americans cherish and the policies of your administration. The statement promises no real benefits on the international stage for the people of either America or Taiwan. Or even China.

The moment was not worthy of you, Ms Rice. History has recorded your name already as a crucial player in the advancement of democracy. You were your country's Russia expert during the fall of the Soviet empire. The people of central and eastern Europe did not achieve peaceful liberation from their nightmare because you or your boss sent mixed messages from your side. The motto then was peace through strength, not status quo.

I think the US has reached the point of self-defeating overkill -- which may in fact be the goal. This bombast-by-proxy policy may be intended to have the opposite effect than it conveys on the surface. Perhaps they are just subtle...

...but I sorta doubt it. It should also be noted that the Chinese wanted Bush himself to make a statement, and instead they got Rice. Since westerners often get rice when they want something else in Chinese settings, it's only natural that we return the favor. (badda bing!). Sec. Rice's comments were certainly uncalled for, but it could have been worse....

I wish Chen would stop misrepresenting the referendum:

Responding to Rice, Chen said the referendum was an engagement the government had made in response to the request of the people.

"The referendum comes from the bottom up, from the 23 million people of Taiwan. The people took the initiative to make the proposal and enthusiastically put their signatures on the petition to sustain the referendum," Chen said.

The referendum was initiated by the DPP and approved by the people. It was not initiated by "the people." This is a game that is beneath our dignity. It might also be wonderful if Chen would shut up until the election and step down as Chairman of the DPP, but I haven't seen any pigs flying outside my window lately.... one thing everyone is saying is that they are tired of Chen, who says things that everyone is thinking, but probably should not be said by any major politician ('there's no cap on the Pacific ocean'). Is the DPP's strategy to make everyone sick of Chen, then trundle out Hsieh to hit the big time for the last six weeks of the campaign?

[Taiwan] [KMT] [DPP] [Chen Shui-bian]

Stray Media on Taiwan's Int'l Relations

The always insightful Ting-i Tsai has a commentary in the Asia Times on the recent decision by the US to take a step back on the referendum. He argues that the US has reluctantly decided to live with it:

Burghardt's approach, which deviated from that of other US officials in recent months, may have signaled that Washington has reluctantly decided to change course after concluding that its efforts to compel Taiwan's ruling party, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), to drop the referendum were futile.

Washington now appears willing to "tolerate" the referendum but is hoping to encourage its failure so that it will not be over-interpreted with expansive and elaborate statements on what the referendum means.

Some US-based analysts believe that Burghardt's comments reflected a shift in attitude, prompted by Washington's realization that it could not have high expectations that Chen would drop the referendum.

Bonnie Glaser, senior associate at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said she sensed that Washington had shifted to acceptance of the referendum after a meeting with a senior US official a few weeks ago.

The view is echoed by Richard Bush, former chairman of the AIT and director of the Washington-based Brookings Institution's Center for Northeast Asian Policy Study. "The attitude [of Washington] has been shifting for some time," Bush said, as the US government has known for a while that the chances were pretty low that the DPP would abandon the referendum.

++++++++

The train of US officials speaking out against the referendum reached another high with Sec. Rice herself labeling it "provocative" in remarks yesterday, the day after she received a letter from two Congressmen asking the Administration to stop this unseemingly behavior. The BBC reports:

At an end-of-year news conference at the state department, Ms Rice said: "We think that Taiwan's referendum to apply to the United Nations under the name 'Taiwan' is a provocative policy.

"It unnecessarily raises tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and it promises no real benefits for the people of Taiwan on the international stage."

Beijing has attacked the referendum, calling it a precursor to attempts to declare independence.

It has consistently threatened to use force if that happens.

Driving this wave of Bush Administration self-expression, I suspect, is the belief that Taiwan's voters actually correctly receive, interpret, and act on, warnings from the US. Tom Christensen, who has been particularly active in elaborating this policy of attacking the referendum on China's behalf, seems to hold this belief. Do people really care what the US says? How can they see what it is saying when everything that is reported here goes through the pro-Blue media's distortion machine?

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

Max Hirsch of Kyodo News, consistently one of the best reporters on the island's affairs, has another insightful piece on the emerging importance of Japan in the domestic political battle here. I've been observing over the last couple of years how Japan's Taiwan policy has undergone a shift in response to China's challenge to Japan, a very favorable shift for Taiwan. Hirsch's piece elaborates on how this has affected Taiwan's internal struggles. Interesting bits highlighted (now in the Japan Times):

Such is the significance of Japan to Taiwan's Mar. 22 presidential election, in which tacit support from the vital trading and strategic partner could make or break the diplomacy platforms of Ma and Hsieh. Hence, Japan has emerged as a key battleground in the political fight for Taiwan's top job, as both frontrunners scramble to curry favor with Tokyo.

''Obviously...both candidates put Taiwan-Japan relations front and center in this race,'' says Andrew Yang of the Chinese Council of Advanced Policy Studies, a Taipei-based think tank.

Concern in Tokyo over whether Taiwan's next president will ''exercise an independent voice'' for the island ''while avoiding miscalculations with Beijing'' is behind Tokyo's keen interest in the race, Yang says.

Taiwan's growing interest in Japan, meanwhile, is obvious.

Amid booming trade and tourism links, Japan's importance to Taiwan on security hit a zenith in 2005, when Tokyo joined Washington in referring to Taiwan as a ''common strategic objective'' -- a veiled reference to likely intervention by the United States and Japan in a Taiwan Strait conflict.

China views Taiwan as a breakaway province that must be united with the mainland, by force if necessary.

Beijing's threats to attack the island have spurred Hsieh to capitalize on Japan's 2005 statement -- issued by then Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi -- by seeking U.S.-style security guarantees from Tokyo during his trip.

However, fears abound in Taipei that the current prime minister, Yasuo Fukuda -- known for his ''China-friendly'' stance -- will back off of commitments to the island to soothe Beijing.

''We have a poster of Junichiro Koizumi tacked up in our office, but not of Prime Minister Fukuda,'' says DPP Legislator Hsiao Bi-khim, who serves in Hsieh's campaign and runs foreign affairs for the DPP.

''It's not that we don't like [Fukuda]; it's just that we connect more with leaders like...Koizumi,'' she adds.

All the more reason, then, for Ma and Hsieh to court Fukuda's administration. Bullish economic ties further explain why wooing Japan is more important in this race than in past races.

Taiwan's trade with Japan, for example, totaled nearly US$63 billion last year, a record high allowing Japan to overtake the United States as Taiwan's second largest trading partner, after China. Taiwan for its part ranks fourth among Japan’s trading partners, while the two exchanged some 2.3 million tourists last year -- another record high.

That both frontrunners sent their running-mates to the United States on goodwill visits before visiting Japan themselves, undermines another piece of conventional wisdom -- that Washington mainly arbitrates the island's geopolitical fate.

Ma's trip to Japan was apparently very successful. The DPP places such importance on its relationship with Japan that its website is available in both Anglais and Japanese....

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

Finally, from a blogger where the south polar star is found comes this tale of growing Chinese influence in the Cook Islands....

Given the paucity of news in New Zealand media about events in our South Pacific neighbours, unless it is about coups, riots or cyclones, I’m not surprised there has been virtually no news here about the wonderful benevolence of China in the Cook Islands. But I am surprised there has been no coverage whatsoever here of the farewell speech given in Rarotonga a few days ago by the departing New Zealand high commissioner John Bryan, which received considerable publicity in the Cooks because of his candid thoughts on the China connection. It’s not as if our media did not know he was leaving – they have been speculating he will be replaced by NZ First MP Brian Donnelly.

As the daily newspaper, the Cook Islands News, put it, career diplomats seldom express their views on important issues in public, so Bryan’s comments were all the more remarkable and worthy of reporting by the New Zealand media.

“People are saying there is no such thing as a free lunch so what do the Chinese want in return for the assistance they are providing?” Bryan said. “There are lots of ideas floating around, including them wanting access to Cook Islands fishing grounds, the establishment of a fishing fleet in the northern group and the facilitation of migrants. May be there is an ounce of truth in that.”

But what John Bryan believes to be China’s main interest is the Taiwan issue. There is great rivalry between China and Taiwan, the province that broke away after Mao’s communists took over the mainland in 1949 and which was recognised by most Western countries as the “official” China until the early 1970s. Some countries still recognise Taiwan rather than China, including Nauru, Palau, Tuvalu and the Solomon Islands in the Pacific. Almost unnoticed by the New Zealand media, China and Taiwan have been quietly competing for influence in the region, in much the same way, though not as nakedly, as Japan has been trying to buy the votes of Pacific nations at the International Whaling Commission. This makes it all the more disappointing that the New Zealand media missed John Bryan’s speech.

Let me report what he said: “I think it comes down to the bitter rivalry that exists between China and Taiwan in securing diplomatic recognition across the Pacific. China advocates, and most members of the United Nations agree, that Taiwan is still a legitimate province of the mainland. Taiwan likes to think they are ‘autonomous’ and can operate accordingly. Several Pacific nations agree with them and they all have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. China would, of course, prefer these countries to respect the one China policy and they continue to try and persuade them to change allegiance. Some argue that this situation is the cause of what is commonly referred to as ‘chequebook diplomacy’ in the Pacific, where the one with the highest financial offering tends to win the battle for diplomatic recognition. Naturally China is concerned that the Pacific island countries that currently support China, including the Cook Islands, might also be courted by Taiwan and be persuaded to change diplomatic recognition. That is why I think they are enhancing their relationship with the Cook Islands and offering tangible assistance. Also, China sees the Cook Islands as having a very good reputation in the region and that they might have the ability to influence those Pacific countries who currently acknowledge Taiwan to change their diplomatic position towards China.”

This is important stuff indeed. An almost unnoticed battle between Taiwan and China for diplomatic influence in our own backyard. These views are presumably what John Bryan was reporting back to Wellington, and what would have been reported from our other diplomatic missions in the region. The Cold War is long over, thank goodness, and China is our friend. But so is Taiwan. We have excellent relationships with both, and we are seeking a free trade deal with China, the first it is likely to sign with a Western country. This makes activities such as China’s and Taiwan’s in our region of more than passing interest, as we could easily be caught up in them. As reported last Sunday by The Hive, Niue has established diplomatic relations with China despite New Zealand being responsible for Niue’s foreign affairs. The Taiwan issue is apparent there, too.

John Bryan’s opinions are of somewhat greater importance than what Lucy Lawless, Hollie Smith and Marcus Lush emote about whales, which the capital’s morning paper saw fit to make its page one lead yesterday. It would be nice to see his cogent, relevant views also get an airing in the mainstream media.

Wow! I would have thought the NZ media would be more interested in South Seas nations, especially since the foreign relations of so many of them are entangled with New Zealand's.

[Taiwan] [US] [China] [Chen Shui-bian] [State Department] [Democracy] [DPP] [Taiwan Independence] [New Zealand]

Last Two Nelson Reports: Taiwan Highlights

Chris Nelson of the Nelson Report is back from surgery and once again passing around insight into the Beltway Mind. Here's his latest excerpt on Taiwan affairs:

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

It sounds like the private Chinese discussions of late mirror almost exactly much of the substance of concerns aired at Heritage, including what Taiwan law may require in the event either of the UN membership referenda are passed.

Both US and Chinese experts seem increasingly convinced that one or the other will pass, although no one can predict that a DPP presidential victory automatically means the DPP referendum also will be approved...and vice versa for the KMT.

But the real concern in both Washington and Beijing, at least, is that the DPP's Frank Hsieh will be president-elect, and also be faced with a successful DPP referendum AND a legal claim by President Chen that it has the force of law, no matter what Chen promised AIT's Ray Burghardt. [MT: This was corrected in the subsequent report:

CORRECTIONS...in last night's Report (12/18) we mistakenly wrote that Taiwan president Chen Shuibian had already contradicted his promise to AIT head Ray Burghardt that the DPP referendum...if passed in March...would not have the force of law.

We seem to have misunderstood a press question at the excellent Heritage Foundation discussion earlier in the day, and thought that a "what if" actually was a "he just said" problem.]

The US has long been concerned about China's propensity for actions which seem disproportionate to the practical reality of DPP actions in a real world...see the Anti-Secession Law, especially.[MT: this would seem to imply that the State Department's position is that if it doesn't talk at Taiwan, China will launch fighters.]

And China has long been concerned that even though it appreciates the strong rhetorical position of the Bush Administration toward DPP actions the US considers to be a risk to the peaceful status-quo, the US continues with manifestations of support (especially arms sales) which undercut the tough US line.[MT: But Jimmy Carter revealed last month that the Chinese had privately agreed to US arms sales in 1979. Isn't it time someone reminded them? ]

So, in a sense, both China and the US now worry about what China may feel compelled to do, perhaps against its enlightened self-interest, in the event of a DPP sweep of the presidency and referendum votes.[MT: Yes, we heard this rhetoric in 2000. And in 2004. Four years later, a millon Taiwanese have sunk $150 billion into China and everyone moves freely in and out. China can send a concrete signal any time it likes by acting against Taiwanese interests in China. Instead, it has successfully transferred the costs of deterrence to the US-Taiwan relationship. ]

The Bush/Yang, and now the Sun Yafu private meetings all seem aimed by China as spurring the US, and Bush personally, to even greater efforts to head-off the referendum vote.

We asked Amb. Joseph Wu about that after his eloquent, even passionate defense of his president and the referendum at Heritage, and Dr. Wu frankly warned that at this point, there is no turning back...the vote on both the DPP and KMT referendum will take place as scheduled.

Among the practical risks being incurred by Taiwan, discussants agreed, is that whatever one may think of the justice of the cause, the DPP policy puts in motion a dynamic in which China will feel justified in...for example...pressing for a UNGA [UN General Assembly] vote specifically endorsing Beijing's policy on "one China"...and perhaps even more likely, accelerating Beijing's "Dollar Diplomacy" against Taiwan's remaining formal diplomatic recognition partners around the world.[MT: It is highly unlikely that China will ever strip the ROC of its remaining diplomatic partners. That would isolate Taiwan and leave it unconnected to any version of China, encouraging further independence moves. A UN General Assembly vote is, from the propaganda standpoint, a thing to be feared.]

At risk of getting ourselves into trouble, we felt it was notable that discussants John Tkacik, Harvey Feldman and others, even though clearly sympathetic to the thrust of the international space and Taiwan identity goals of the DPP, frankly warned that the referendum battle was counter productive to Taiwan's international position, and especially its relations with the United States.[MT: Note two things: first, Taiwan needs to find a way to fix this problem pronto; and second, all of the discussants and pro-Taiwan types are conservatives or Establishment scholars. There is no Dem China policy, and there is no progressive discussion of Taiwan. Start talking, readers: what can Taiwan do to fix this mess with the US? ]

All discussants agreed that the Bush Administration has missed chances to actively sponsor Taiwanese international memberships in ways defined as acceptable to the PRC.
A current example...China's notification to the ICAO of two new air routes which just happen to go down the center of the Straits and which could have the effect of curtailing Taiwanese defense interests (and therefore US interests).

Despite having two major international airlines, Taiwan has not been supported for ICAO membership by the US, it was noted.

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

UPDATE: ESWN has a link and translation to a blog in Chinese about the Heritage Meeting. Note how the events emphasized in the blog in Chinese are completely meaningless in the meeting account given by Nelson.

[Taiwan] [KMT] [DPP] [China] [Kitty Hawk] [US]

US Runs Interference for Beijing Again

In the last couple of weeks Tom Christensen of State, Steve Young of our own American Institute in Taiwan (AIT; the officially unofficial US representative organ here), and now Raymond Burghhardt, Chairman of AIT, have told Taiwan the DPP UN referendum is a bad idea. Ralph Jennings of Reuters has the call:

The United States on Tuesday criticized Taiwan's plan to hold a referendum on U.N. membership repeating its line that it would upset the status quo with neighbor China which considers the self-ruled island its own.

Taiwan's ruling Democratic Progressive Party plans to hold the referendum alongside presidential elections in March, ignoring warnings from Washington and Beijing.

"Just the process of having a referendum will make it harder to develop relations across the Taiwan Strait," Raymond Burghardt, chairman of the U.S. government's American Institute in Taiwan, told a news conference.

"It isn't going to accomplish anything in changing Taiwan's international status."

The United States is Taiwan's biggest ally and the institute is its de facto embassy.

Burghhardt is entirely correct: the referendum won't change Taiwan's international status -- because China has a veto in the UN. Since it can't change Taiwan's status, why have a succession of US officials criticized it? US officials certainly must be aware that by hacking on the DPP referendum, they are in effect (1) running interference for Beijing, saving it from playing the heavy and affecting the election; and, (2) making election points for Ma Ying-jeou. I can't help but add that while the US calls press conferences of Taiwan media reps to object to the DPP's referendum as "altering the status quo" it says nothing about Chinese missiles. The Status Quo in US hands is just a club to beat Taipei with......

Burghardt also added that the referendum will make it harder to develop relations across the Taiwan Strait. AIT's history is a bit thin, there. Chen has made repeated overtures to China, but China has repeatedly indicated it will not talk to the DPP. The relations problem is not a Taiwan problem, and the State Department is talking to the wrong side. Just look at all the neighboring nations China has friendly relations with......China is not a normal country -- it has no friends.

It should also be noted that the whole relations issue is very narrowly construed. As far as I can see Taiwan has very good relations with China -- $100-150 billion in investment and a million of its citizens are relating there even as we speak. If China was really concerned about the referendum, we'd see concrete action on its part against Taiwanese interests there -- but not a peep is heard. Thousands of Taiwanese enter and leave China on a daily basis, and a flourishing underground banking system takes their cash to and from the Communist state, and not a sou or soul is molested. Instead of concrete action on its own behalf, which might be costly in terms of investment and political backlash, China has the US running interference for it. This enables Beijing to intervene in the island's election at no cost to itself. Instead of concrete action, what we hear are throaty complaints, whose main purpose is to sway media discourse and keep the Bush Administration in line. Instead of China taking the hit, the US-Taiwan relationship bears the cost of this misguided policy. This is what Beijing defines as a win-win situation -- it wins coming and going.....

I think maybe the DPP ought to figure out a way to incorporate the US campaign against the referendum as a positive point in its election appeal -- "Hey folks! With one vote you can give the raised middle finger to both Beijing and Washington!"

[Taiwan] [China] [Kitty Hawk] [US]

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]

US Congressman Introduce Resolution to Support UN for Taiwan

Media outlets are reporting the introduction of a resolution backed by 19 US legislators to support Taiwan into the UN (Taipei Times).

No date has been fixed for debate on the bill in the US legislature.

"It's unclear when it will come before the committee, we have no mark-ups scheduled for the next month," said Lynne Weil, spokeswoman for House foreign affairs committee chairman Tom Lantos.

Chen's Democratic Progressive Party is pushing for the controversial vote to be held alongside the presidential elections on March 22, 2008.

But on Friday the de facto US envoy to Taiwan, Stephen Young, said a referendum was "not necessary" or "helpful" and called on Taiwan to adopt a "careful and moderate approach" in relations with China.

"I have regular dialogues with President Chen and the other players in Taiwan on the political side," Young, director of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), told reporters.

"I think it is clear to say neither President Chen nor anybody else here in Taiwan should be confused by the effective opposition to the referendum and the reasons."

US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte said in August Washington opposed any such referendum because it would be a step to declaring full independence.

US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas J. Christensen also recently urged the leadership in Taipei to "anticipate potential Chinese red lines and reactions and avoid unnecessary and unproductive provocations."

Local Taiwan newspapers have reported that Washington has decided to postpone the sale of dozens of F-16 C/D fighters to Taipei in an effort to show its displeasure.

The resolution was introduced by Scott Garret (R) of New Jersey. It's just a resolution, and is essentially meaningless, as the Bush Administration has already shown time and again that it cares not what Congress does. It's always nice to show support, though.

Tom Christensen, the State Department official mentioned in the article above, was recently identified in a private emailing from someone in the know as extremely knowledgeable on US-China relations but a strong supporter of the refusal to sell Taiwan F-16s, and of the US attacks on Taiwan's referendum plan. Christensen apparently believes that Taiwan should not "provoke" China. Since China determines whether it has been provoked, positions like Christensen's simply make US policy hostage to Chinese initiative. Worse still, they invite war since they makes the US look indifferent to Taiwan's fate, and weak and easily manipulated.

MEDIA NOTES: The AFP article offers a good example of how pro-China biases are introduced into news articles through the use of routine formulations that are either slanted ("China considers Taiwan part of its territory" but what does Taiwan think?) or erroneous ("China and Taiwan split in 1949"), as well as with loaded languages and telling omissions. Note the opening frame of the story:

Nineteen US lawmakers, nearly all of them from President George W. Bush's Republican party, have introduced a bill in the House of Representatives backing UN membership for Taiwan, a move that could anger China.

Imagine this opening frame:

Nineteen US lawmakers, nearly all of them from President George W. Bush's Republican party, have introduced a bill in the House of Representatives backing UN membership for Taiwan, a move that shows support for Taiwan's vibrant democracy.

The idea of democracy is never referred to in the article, except indirectly in the mention of elections. Instead, the referendum is framed negatively throughout the entire article, using loaded language:

The Bush administration has tried to discourage Chen's effort, which has has touched a raw nerve with China, which considers it a provocative step towards independence.

Do nations have raw nerves?

Taiwan, under its official name the Republic of China, lost its UN seat to China in 1971. Its efforts to rejoin using its official title have been repeatedly blocked by Beijing, which sees the island as part of its territory.

No mention of Taiwan's position on the issue, of course. This is followed by more negative framing:

During a recent Asia-Pacific summit in Sydney, Chinese President Hu Jintao told Bush that Taiwan's referendum plan had propelled the cross-strait situation into a "possibly dangerous period."

The President of China is cited, but nothing contextualizes this. Chinese military and political threats to Taiwan are not mentioned, and Hu is treated as if he were not a man who had killed to get and maintain his power. There is no reason that the AFP report could not have included this passage in the resolution reported in the Taipei Times....

"Taiwan has dramatically improved its record on human rights and routinely holds fair and free elections in a multiparty system, as evidenced by Taiwan's second [sic] democratic presidential election in 2000 and 2004, in which Mr Chen Shui-bian [陳水扁] was elected as President," the resolution said.

...except that it would have spoiled the effectiveness of all that negative language about the horrible referendum, of course, especially in contrast to the regime run by Hu Jintao.

[Taiwan] [US] [China] [Democracy] [UN] [DPP] [Taiwan Independence] [US Foreign Policy]