Taipei Times /April 20, 2007
1
Speaking out aids healing, Tutu tells 228 families
SUFFERING: Visiting Machangding Memorial Park yesterday, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate
said that facing the truth is a way of dealing with it
By Jewel Huang
STAFF REPORTER
"I hope [the 228 victims] know that their unfortunate experiences have brought
democracy, human rights and freedom to today's Taiwan."--- Desmond Tutu, former
anti-apartheid campaigner
Telling others about their traumatic experiences is a healing process for the families of
victims of the 228 Incident, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu said yesterday.
Tutu, the former primate of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, made the
remarks when visiting Machangding Memorial Park and 228 Memorial Hall in Taipei
yesterday with Alexander Boraine, founding president of the International Center for
Transitional Justice.
The 228 Incident was an uprising
against the Chinese Nationalist Party
(KMT) administration under dictator
Chiang Kai-shek that began on Feb. 27,
1947, followed by a bloody crackdown
resulting in the deaths of tens of
thousands of civilians.
Machangding Memorial Park is where
the KMT executed political prisoners
during the White Terror era in the 1950s.
Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu looks at the
portraits of victims of the 228 Incident at the 228
Memorial Hall in Taipei yesterday.
Tutu is visiting the country at the invitation of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy.
When meeting the family members of the 288 victims, Tutu said that he had not come
to Taiwan to educate people on how to solve problems caused by the tragedy. He said
he wanted to hear stories from the incident and advised that facing the truth humbly
Taipei Times /April 20, 2007
2
could be a way of dealing with it.
Establishing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was one way that South Africa
was able to cope with its racial persecution, he said. Understanding a tragic past can
help people face trauma, he added.
"I think it is good therapy for the family members to tell their stories. And finding out
the truth from those stories is a key to heal the wound," Tutu said, adding that the
government has the responsibility of finding the truth, which is an essential element of
reconciliation and forgiveness.
Tutu said that he has seen many South Africans who have suffered from apartheid that
are filled with anger, wanting to take revenge. But the sufferers in Taiwan look genial
and peaceful.
"I hope [the 228 victims] know that their unfortunate experiences have brought
democracy, human rights and freedom to today's Taiwan," he said.
Boraine said that Taiwan and South Africa have similar tragic histories, but they both
have just and peaceful voices. He also stressed that pursuing truth can bring hope to
people, although it is not an easy path.
"Truth is just like herbal medicine. It tastes bitter but it can heal the past," Boraine
said.
Last night, Tutu met former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Lin
I-hsiung at the Gikong Church.
Lin's mother and twin daughters were murdered on Feb. 28, 1980, while he was in jail
for his involvement in the Kaohsiung Incident in December 1979, a pro-human rights
rally that turned violent. The murders remain unsolved.
Time to say no to US' `one China'
By Michael Lin
Taipei Times /April 20, 2007
3
The US government has made it clear that it will not back Taiwan's plan to apply for
WHO membership under the name "Taiwan." On the diplomatic front, the major
obstacle facing Taiwan is the US' adherence to the "one China" policy. Unfortunately,
during the recent televised debate between the four Democratic Progressive Party
(DPP) presidential hopefuls, none of them pointed out how inappropriate the "one
China" policy is or came up with a clear and comprehensive diplomatic strategy for
Taiwan to gain international recognition.
I believe that Taiwan's diplomatic strategy towards the US should stress its core
values and adhere to the principles of reciprocity and coexistence in urging the US to
revise its outdated "one China" policy, while letting the US understand that whatever
Taiwan does will benefit the US.
Taiwan should begin by accentuating its democratic achievements and its geopolitical
and economic strategic value.
Taiwan and China share a linguistic and cultural background. Taiwan's democratic
experience is the most important example for leading China down the path to
democracy. As democracy deepens, the Taiwanese people are developing an
increasingly strong awareness of Taiwan's independence and sovereignty, and the US
government's antiquated "one China" policy only hurts the future development of
cross-strait relations. This will have an impact on Washington's ultimate goal of a
peaceful transformation of China.
Second, Taiwan enjoys a unique strategic geopolitical position in the Asia Pacific
region and it supports the US-Japan alliance which will stop China, a continental
nation, from expanding its naval capabilities. However, if the US continues to abide
by its "one China" policy, Taiwan will not be able to exert its geopolitical advantage,
thereby allowing the already powerful China to engage in maritime expansion.
Third, Taiwan outshines China in management, integration of mid and downstream
industries and research and development. In addition, China's exports to the US are
mostly made by China-based Taiwanese companies, so if Washington refuses to adjust
its "one China" policy, it will in the end be restricted by China's giving precedence to
politics over the economy when dealing with Taiwan.
Taiwan should then take aim at Washington's cross-strait policy and Taiwan's
democracy.
Taipei Times /April 20, 2007
4
First, the objective of US cross-strait policy is to help the two sides of the Taiwan
Strait to settle their differences peacefully. However, Beijing is making every effort to
block Taiwan in the international arena. If the US does not want to adjust its "one
China" policy and help Taiwan join important international organizations, there will
be no room for cross-strait negotiations on an equal footing.
Second, the circumstances when the US first formulated its "one China" policy were
very different from today's growing Taiwanese consciousness. By adopting a policy
that obscures Taiwan's sovereignty, the US will not be able to help Taipei and Beijing
settle their differences.
Third, the US' China-leaning cross-strait policy has not only violated the basic rights
of the citizens of Taiwan to purse their freedom, democracy and happiness, but it has
also violated the founding spirit of the US and the administration of US President
George W. Bush's policy of seeking global democratization.
Faced with a difficult situation, Taiwan must make good use of its resources, construct
a discourse that best tallies with US interests and come up with a strategy aimed at
closing the gap between ideals and reality. Only by doing so can we bring the
international community to recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state and eventually join
the WHO and the UN. Therefore, it is about time that our national leaders said no to
the US' "one China" policy.
Michael Lin is a political commentator.

http://blog.228.net.tw/tda/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=403

http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/jw!.O66cweAHxA2ZQFWifbkj5pqIqfm8w--/article?mid=177

Taipei Times /April 7, 2007
1
Climate change report leaves scientists ruffled
AP, BRUSSELS
"The authors lost."－a scientist who helped in the drafting of the climate change
report
An international global warming conference approved a report on climate change
yesterday, chairman Rajendra Pachauri said, after a contentious marathon session that
saw angry exchanges between diplomats and scientists who drafted the report.
"We have an approved accord. It has been a complex exercise," Pachauri told
reporters after an all-night meeting of the International Panel on Climate Change.
Several scientists objected to the editing of the final draft by government negotiators,
but in the end agreed to compromises. However, some scientists vowed never to take
part in the process again.
"The authors lost," one scientist said. "A lot of authors are not going to engage in the
IPCC process anymore. I have had it with them," he said on condition of anonymity
because the proceedings were supposed to remain confidential.
A reporter, however, witnessed part of the final meeting.
The climax of five days of negotiations was reached when the delegates removed
parts of a key chart highlighting devastating effects of climate change that kick in
with every rise of 1oC. There was also a tussle over the level of confidence attached
to key statements.
The US, China and Saudi Arabia raised the most objections to the phrasing, most
often seeking to tone down the certainty of some of the more dire projections.
The final report is the clearest and most comprehensive scientific statement to date on
the impact of global warming mainly caused by human-induced carbon dioxide
pollution. It predicts that up to 30 percent of species face an increased risk of
extinction if global temperatures rise 2oC above the average of the 1980s and 1990s.
Taipei Times /April 7, 2007
2
Areas that now suffer a shortage of rain will become even drier, adding to the risks of
hunger and disease, and the world will face heightened threats of flooding, severe
storms and the erosion of coastlines, it said.
Will of heaven?
Falun Gong practitioners in Ilan County yesterday call on Chinese to withdraw from the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP). The two in the center are dressed as ``heavenly generals,'' to signify that the
CCP will soon be toppled by the will of heaven.
Taipei Times /April 7, 2007
3

台灣獨立論述辯證

以推翻中華民國體制 建立台灣國為首要

保護台灣大聯盟

主席楊緒東

　

近來有關台灣是否已經獨立的論述，於阿輝伯的最新聲明，否定台灣獨立進展的事實，引發台聯的危機，以前台灣建國支持者早已認知外來政權統治台灣的事實，要建立台灣國，必然是推翻中華民國的體制，包括制憲正名、進入聯合國等等項目，而認知這一系列的建國過程，就是“台灣真正獨立”的必要條件，獨派與當時阿輝伯亦能接受，此觀念在台灣國人民心中根深蒂固，不容改變，現在卻因為“台灣事實已經獨立”的論說再現，使台灣獨立的支持者產生一頭霧水。



根據這一點，我以個人所了解的範圍加以解說：

(一)國民黨在台灣執政時代，為了使台灣人民能夠信服其合法的統治，故自稱中華民國是個主權獨立的國家，而範圍大到中華人民共和國所轄的範圍，後來，蔣介石集團被逐出聯合國，聯合國保留中華民國國號，而由中華人民共和國取得中華民國的所有權，中華民國有效統治的台灣成為中國的一部份，故中國宣稱合法擁有台灣，台灣是中國的一部份。最近，日本為了巴結中國，把中華民國所擁有的財產光華寮判給中華人民共和國，就是依據此“國際觀點”來決定。



(二)中華民國放棄中國版圖，承認有效統治台、澎、金、馬，正式宣告中華民國在台灣獨立的事實，但是與中華民國現有的憲法一中衝突，引起國親兩黨興風作浪，所謂中華民國已經在台灣獨立的現實，並非事實。



(三)中華民國在台灣的論說，解釋為中華民國寄生在台灣，或是中華民國這個“國家”在台灣成立，有效統治範圍為台、澎、金、馬，亦引發統派人士的不滿，中國黨自從失去政權之後，已經成為台灣人民的公敵，他們氣極敗壞的要奪取國民黨在台灣的政權，無惡不作，無法無天，急於引導中華人民共和國來佔有台灣，是政權鬥爭，拉高到“消滅台灣國”的血戰。



(四)台灣等於中華民國，或是中華民國就是台灣，其立論來源是因為偏台灣國的民進黨取得政權，故有此說，一旦國民黨再奪回政權之後，中華民國是否還會與台灣劃為等號，或是台灣國會被強烈打壓，是一種變數，大家要知道未來引導13億人口入台，無所顧忌，是“憲法一中”的合法作為，中國提出“反分裂法”就是預先設立法理犯台的法源依據。



(五)執政黨說「中華民國獨立在台灣」或是「台灣事實獨立」，是中華民國與台灣國皆是主權獨立的國家，造成兩獨相殺，中華民國的“獨”是以憲法、法律殺台灣國的“獨立建國”，以台灣國鄉親的直覺，普遍發現「中華民國獨立在台灣」是假相，一旦中華民國政權由統派取得之後，就會回復到與中國統一的狀況，於是政權的爭奪成為統獨的主軸，而建立「台灣國」的關鍵，亦只是一種淺薄的政治遊戲於選舉中做廝殺定位。



(六)建立台灣國，逐出中華民國是最明確選項，但是進展太快會有內亂，統派中國黨會有垂死前的頑抗，付出社會成本甚大，故須加強台灣建國意識的全民教育。



故知要能妥善進行台灣建國的計劃，須有全面思考戰鬥方略的運用，我有些看法。



(一)外省第二代、第三代，代代延續生活在台灣，漸無中國情懷，以生活經驗做為記憶，故自然而然有台灣情懷。

(二)民間借由特定節目，行全民教化之實，如 3月16日 台灣青年節日，或是228追思感恩活動……。

(三)阿輝伯模糊性的「台灣已經獨立」仍要加以清晰宣傳，中華民國之佔有台灣，絕非是中華民國在台灣獨立。

(四)中華民國是主權獨立的國家，與台灣是主權獨立的國家，絕對不同，中華民國是聯合國已經不承認的老字號，為中華人民共和國所取代，而台灣則是地位未定。

(五)台灣全民建國意識未全面成形時，台灣是被中華民國強佔殖民統治，而用有效統治的遊戲規則，實施台、澎、金、馬的選舉遊戲，正因為有各方國際勢力介入，台灣於夾縫方可以安然行使選總統、副總統、立法委員……的直接選舉，而以中華民國為名的封閉性遊戲，非真正擁有在國際社會表達意識的自主權。

(六)台灣整體力量的表現才可以引起國際關切，模糊台灣主權立場或中華民國在台灣的強佔統治，皆非事實，中華民國存在一天，台灣即無法伸張主權，中華民國訂定的憲法、法律使台灣人民只能在圈圈中自拉自唱，爽爽而已。

(七)台灣國建立的根本辦法，還是在於大多數台灣人民的建國共識，而此共識的成形，在於消滅中華民國在台灣所施行的各種大中國意識。

(八)民間台獨大老必須團結合作，不要製造假獨立論述，才不會混淆全民的台灣國教育。

(九)對中國打壓台灣的事實，有公開論述的必要性，成立民間法院以挑戰中華民國的憲法與法律。

(十)對228、白色恐怖的犧牲者，應尊崇為民主人權大菩薩成為全民建國信仰。

(十一)還原歷史真相，審判歷史公案，政府不做，由民間法院來辦理。

(十二)加強民間外交運作的能力，結合台僑做國際間的喉舌，鼓勵台灣人勇於發言，敢於伸張正義。



台灣的台灣國不成國，NCC可公然違憲，月領高薪（14~24萬左右），成為立法院直屬的行政機構，偏袒統派媒體打壓本土發聲，高喊言論自由，坐享統戰洗腦之實，而賣台邱毅之輩，不但輕判，還可在獄中坐領高薪（月入30萬~50萬），近日發燒的TVBS案，不但與黑道謀和，更助紂為虐，坐享高收視率，此中資統媒人人皆知，台灣人當了總統，有執政權亦無可奈何。長久以來，迫害台灣菁英的事件，有那一件能夠平反，補償變賠償，此等芝麻小事喊到今日方給予修正，立法院獨大是事實，而行政院懦弱不舉也是事實，種種不平等的裁判與憲法曲解，至今更甚，台灣有獨立主權嗎？台灣還能在中華天子的腳下茍存嗎？



以上所言，皆漫談之言，希望大家不吝指教，本會積極進行各種講座，推廣台灣人拜台灣神信仰，喊出『信仰建國228，追思感恩台灣神』的信念，請台灣國鄉親一起努力打拼，共同推翻中華民國。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published on Taipei Times
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2007/03/29/2003354298

Gangster footage shot by TVBS reporter

By Jimmy Chuang and Shelley Shan
STAFF REPORTERS
Thursday, Mar 29, 2007, Page 1

Advertising Video footage televised by nearly all news channels on Monday featuring a gangster demonstrating an array of firearms and threatening to kill his estranged boss was discovered yesterday to have been fabricated by cable television station TVBS.
TVBS issued a statement last night that said it had fired Nantou reporter Shi Chen-kang (史鎮康), who filmed the video, and his superior, chief correspondent Chang Yu-kun (張裕坤).

In the video, Chou Cheng-pao (周政保), a member of the Celestial Way Gang, sat next to a table with a number of pistols and rifles.

In addition to threatening to shoot his former gangster boss, Chou said in the video that he was also behind three recent shooting incidents in the Taichung area.

In its statement, TVBS said an internal investigation had found that Shi had helped Chou film the video.

TVBS news director Pan Tzu-yin (潘祖蔭) and vice news director Sun Chia-juei (孫嘉蕊) were also given citations for their lack of oversight, the statement added.

According to the TVBS, Shi explained that Chou asked him for help on Saturday afternoon. He decided to make the video because he found it newsworthy, the station cited Shi as saying.

Shi asked Chang not to tell TVBS managers about how he got the footage, TVBS said.

Yang Ying-lan (楊英蘭), an official with the National Communications Commission (NCC), disagreed with TVBS' position that the two reporters were solely responsible for the incident.

"The footage has been broadcasted again and again," she said. "How can the management at the station get away with simply saying that it was just the reporters' fault?"

When asked if the incident will cause the station to lose its broadcast license, Yang said the penalty will ultimately be determined by the commission's members.

If the commission finds the Chou video to be a serious violation, the station will be asked to stop broadcasting for three days.

Cabinet Spokesman Cheng Wen-tsang (鄭文燦) said last night that Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) was very upset upon hearing that the video had been filmed by Shi.

Taichung police summoned Shi for further interrogation.


Copyright © 1999-2007 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved.

Taipei Times /March 14, 2007
1
Prize-winning piggies
A lantern inspired by the fairy story ``The Three Little Pigs'' is displayed in Hsinchu yesterday. The
lantern won first-place in the hanging lantern division in a competition held by the Hsinchu Du
Cheng Huang Temple.
Chen calls for three-party approach to Taiwan Strait
PUSHING PEACE: The president said the US and China can't ignore Taiwan's view in trying to
ensure stability in the Strait while criticizing Beijing's military budget
By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER, WITH AFP
Taipei Times /March 14, 2007
2
On the eve of the second anniversary of the passage of China's "Anti-Secession" Law,
President Chen Shui-bian urged the EU to retain its ban on arms sales to China and
for the US, Taiwan and China together to manage peace and stability in the Taiwan
Strait.
Until China improves its human-rights record and relinquishes attempts to use
military force against Taiwan, Chen said the international community -- particularly
the EU -- should maintain its arms embargo against China.
The embargo was imposed following the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989.
Chen said, however, that Taiwan opposed the management of the "Taiwan issue" by
the US and China. He said Taiwan and those two countries should work together to
maintain peace, security and stability in the Strait.
Chen made the remarks while receiving John Hamre, president and CEO of the
Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, at the Presidential
Office yesterday morning.
Chen Ming-tong, professor at the National Taiwan University's Graduate Institute of
National Development, said that President Chen's call for the joint management of the
Strait's stability was made to counter the proposal made by some US academics that
the US and China co-manage the Taiwan issue.
"The president's goal is to establish the framework of `three party' talks," he said.
"However, China's attitude is key because it does not want to see the US interfere in
its `domestic affairs.'"
The president also urged China to learn from Taiwan's nationalization of its armed
forces so the People's Liberation Army (PLA) would serve the country and its people
rather than a particular party or individual.
He also asked China to practice genuine democratic elections that are free, fair and
open.
"China should have elections so that political parties can enjoy fair competition,
opposition parties can be legally recognized and transfer of party power would be
possible," he said. "China should learn from Taiwan's democratization and allow its
Taipei Times /March 14, 2007
3
people to directly elect their national leaders and parliamentary representatives."
The president chastised China for legalizing its military ambition to attack Taiwan by
enacting the "Anti-Secession" Law after it failed to deter Taiwan's first free
presidential election in 1996 by firing live missiles into the Strait.
"The piece of legislation not only reflects China's hegemonic nature of indulging in
wars of aggression, but also imposes a great threat to the safety of the democratic
community in the Asia-Pacific region," he said.
China has increased its military budgets by double-digits since 1989 and the 17.8
percent growth in its defense budget this year was the biggest since 1989.
"We think such an increase goes far beyond its needs of self-defense," the president
said, adding that China's actual defense expenditure last year increased by 20 percent
compared with 2005.
In Beijing, Chinese President Hu Jintao urged the PLA to firmly adhere to ommunist
leadership, the People's Daily yesterday quoted Hu as saying.
"We must strictly abide by political and organizational discipline and ensure that the
army under all conditions and at all times firmly obeys the orders of the party's central
committee," Hu was quoted as telling military delegates at the National People's
Congress.
"We must grasp the banner, obey the fundamental tenet of following the orders of the
party, and firmly arm our officers and soldiers with Marxism with Chinese
characteristics," he said.
`Anti-Secession' Law opposed: survey
By Jewel Huang
STAFF REPORTER
Taipei Times /March 14, 2007
4
A vast majority of Taiwanese disapprove of China's bid to change the cross-strait
status quo by passing its "Anti-Secession" Law two years ago and believe that the
people of Taiwan should be the only ones to have a say in determining the nation's
future, a new think tank survey shows.
More than 90 percent of respondents disagreed with China's attempts to change the
cross-strait status with the law, while nearly 80 percent think the Taiwanese should be
the only decision makers in determining Taiwan's future, the survey found.
The Taiwan Thinktank conducted the poll from last Friday through Sunday to see if
there had been a change in opinion since Beijing enacted the law two years ago today
and gathered a total of 1,067 valid responses.
According to the results, 91.2 percent of respondents said they opposed the enactment
of the "Anti-Secession" Law, 80.2 percent disagreed with China's claim that the law
met the interests of Taiwanese and 79.5 percent said it was up to the people of Taiwan
to determine the nation's future.
Only 14.5 percent of respondents believed that the people of China should also have a
say in Taiwan's future.
"The result showed that the `Anti-Secession' Law has not alienated the people of
Taiwan, it has provoked Taiwan to have a more consolidated consensus on its attitude
toward China," said Lo Chih-cheng, director of Soochow University's department of
political science, at the press conference to announce the results yesterday.
"Beijing got the reverse of what it wanted from the legislation," Lo said.
Tung Li-wen, deputy executive director of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy,
said the law had bogged China down in a "war of laws," especially in terms of
international law, which was China's weak point.
"This law was in response to internal pressure in China on the `Taiwan issue' yet
Beijing has been unable to define what [Taiwan's] independence is," he said.
The poll found 67.1 percent of respondents disagreed with the statement that China
had actively contacted Taiwanese opposition parties while refusing to talk with with
Taiwan's government.
Taipei Times /March 14, 2007
5
Almost half of respondents, 47.2 percent, said the law had a bad influence on
cross-strait relations, while 33 percent said it had not had any influence.
"This is a result of China using the carrot and the stick at the same time," said Hsu
Yung-ming, a research fellow in political science at Academia Sinica.
Meanwhile, a second opinion poll released by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)
yesterday said about half of its respondents want to see Taiwan independent.
The poll was conducted last Wednesday and Thursday and received 1,034 valid
responses.
It found that 50.4 percent of respondents favor independence while 33.9 percent
support unification with China. Those were the only two options offered.
As for national identity, 68 percent said they considered themselves Taiwanese while
16 percent said they identified with China.
"This is a `gift' to China from the Taiwanese people on the eve of the second
anniversary of the `Anti-Secession' Law," DPP Secretary-General Lin Chia-lung said
at a press conference.
Chinese AIDS activist says Beijing not helping
AP, WASHINGTON
Gao Yaojie shakes her head, stabbing hard at the air with her forefinger, when asked if
the Chinese government is helping fund her efforts to expose the country's AIDS
problems.
"Not even a dime," the 79-year-old -- some say she is 80 -- AIDS activist said on
Monday.
This is a message some Chinese authorities were reluctant to have Gao deliver in the
Taipei Times /March 14, 2007
6
US.
blocked
Officials in Beijing had repeatedly blocked her from going abroad until finally
allowing this trip after her case received widespread media attention.
Gao said the government is beginning to understand the enormity of the AIDS
problem.
Speaking through an interpreter, the retired gynecologist praised Chinese President
Hu Jintao for allowing her to travel to Washington to receive an award this evening
honoring her work. She also praised high-ranking health officials.
But despite many changes in government attitudes, she said: "Sometimes they support
me; sometimes they don't."
She is tenacious in her efforts, using her own money and funds from foreign awards
she has received to pay for her work.
facing reality
Officials, she said, should "face the reality and deal with the real issues -- not cover it
up."
In the 1990s, Gao embarrassed the Chinese government by exposing blood-selling
schemes that infected thousands with HIV, mainly in her home province of Henan.
Operators often used dirty needles, and people selling plasma -- the liquid in blood --
were replenished from a pooled blood supply that was contaminated with HIV.
Provincial officials initially attempted -- with some success -- to cover things up.
The Chinese government and the UN said China's problem of tainted blood has
improved.
But surviving victims face discrimination and have not been adequately compensated
for their suffering.
Gao has also faced difficulties because of her activism.
Taipei Times /March 14, 2007
7
In 2001, she was refused a visa to go to the US to accept an award from a UN group.
In 2003 she was prevented from going to the Philippines to receive a public service
award.
Last month, authorities kept her under virtual house arrest for about 20 days to keep
her from traveling to Beijing to arrange a visa for the US.
Gao says she persists in her work because "everyone has the responsibility to help
their own people. As a doctor, that's my job. So it's worth it."
John Tkacik on Taiwan: What exactly is the `status quo'?
By John Tkacik
`It is vital that the US administration, and particularly Bush and his successors,
sympathize with the existential challenge facing Taiwan.'
On May 18 last year, President Chen Shui-bian told visiting European legislators,
"Over the past 50 years, the status quo across the Taiwan Strait has been that on one
side, there is a democratic Taiwan, and on the other, there is an authoritarian China.
Neither of the two countries are subordinate to each other, because they are two
independent sovereignties. Both sides have their own national title, national flag,
national anthem, legislature, judicial system and military." Given the textbook
definition of "status quo," this seems reasonable, at least to me.
On March 4, Chen made another of his periodic comments on Taiwan's status quo,
this time saying that Taiwan's only problem was its national identity. The following
day in Washington, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack was asked,
"Can you make the link in one sentence saying that President Chen's comments are
unhelpful or can you not say that?"
To which McCormack responded with the non sequitur, "I don't have anything to add
to the statement that I have read." The statement he had just read had nothing to do
with the validity of what Chen had said, but simply noted that "[US] President
Taipei Times /March 14, 2007
8
[George W.] Bush has repeatedly underscored his opposition to unilateral changes to
the status quo by either Taipei or Beijing because these threaten regional peace and
stability."
Chen's observations on Taiwan's status quo are indeed "provocative" to Beijing's
leaders, but they at least have the advantage of being true and consequently need not
be provocative in Washington. This is because Washington presumably has an interest
in maintaining the status quo in the Taiwan Strait -- the status quo that Chen
describes.
On Dec. 9, 2003, Bush chastised "Taiwan's leader?" -- Chen -- for making comments
that "indicate that he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally that change the
status quo, which we oppose." Bush was apparently referring to the "Taiwanese
leader's" comments about a democratic referendum on Taiwan that would express
Taiwanese indignation at being the target, at the time, of 350 Chinese short-range
ballistic missiles.
Yet, far from threatening a unilateral change by Taipei in the status quo, the Taiwanese
referendum was meant to protest Beijing's military moves to change the status quo.
The Bush administration has since tried to rearticulate a somewhat conditioned
position which insists that the US is committed to "our `one China' policy" and
"opposes" any move by China or Taiwan to "change unilaterally" the "status quo as
we define it."
On April 21, 2004, a glimmering of this position came in a public statement by then
US assistant secretary of state for East Asia and Pacific Affairs James Kelly, who
enumerated for the House International Relations Committee "core principles" of US
policy in the Taiwan Strait:
* "The United States remains committed to our one-China policy based on the three
Joint Communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act;
* "The US does not support independence for Taiwan or unilateral moves that would
change the status quo as we define it;
* "For Beijing, this means no use of force or threat to use force against Taiwan. For
Taipei, it means exercising prudence in managing all aspects of cross-strait relations.
Taipei Times /March 14, 2007
9
For both sides, it means no statements or actions that would unilaterally alter Taiwan's
status."
Beyond that third point, Kelly had to admit he was "not sure" he "very easily could
define ... `our' one China policy." Nonetheless he continued, "I can tell you what it is
not." It is not the "one China" principle that Beijing suggests, and it may not be the
definition that some would have in Taiwan. Alas, that is as close as a State
Department official has ever come to defining "our one China policy" in private or in
public. Nor, as it happens, has any US official ever "defined" the "status quo as we
define it."
Which raises two core questions for US policy: First, what are the "use of force" and
the "threat of force" and what, exactly, is Taiwan's status, as far as the US is
concerned? And second, what is the US going to do if either side does something the
US "does not support?"
The fact is that Washington has no answers to these core questions -- either publicly
or in confidential policy documents circulated among decisionmakers. Hence,
Washington's political leaders should not be surprised when Washington's Delphic
pronouncements are interpreted arbitrarily in both Beijing and Taipei.
Actually, Beijing just ignores Washington. In 2003, the Chinese People's Liberation
Army deployed 350 ballistic missiles targeted on Taiwan, and by February last year
there were more than 700. In March 2005, Beijing's "legislature" passed a law giving
the Central Military Commission the authority to launch a military strike against
Taiwan whenever it feels like it. And there was little or no public comment from
Washington.
On Feb. 27 last year, US State Department spokesman Adam Ereli was asked, apropos
of something Chen had said a day earlier, "Do you think Chen Shui-bian's move is a
change of the status quo, and what is the US definition of the status quo?" Ereli tried
to turn the question around: "President Chen has said that he is committed to the
status quo and that he is committed to the pledges in his inaugural speech." But the
questions persisted: "I just want to get this right. So you don't consider this as a
change of status quo?" To which the cornered Ereli could only admit: "You know, I'm
not going to define it further than I already have." Needless to say, he hadn't defined it
at all. Chen himself might therefore be excused if he doesn't quite have a clear picture
of the status quo -- as Washington defines it.
Taipei Times /March 14, 2007
10
The US Defense Department is a bit clearer on the concept. On March 16 last year,
US Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman observed that, in his opinion,
"When there are zero ballistic missiles opposite the Taiwan Strait, and a few years
later there are 700, that's a change in the status quo." But the Pentagon doesn't make
Taiwan policy, the State Department does, and therein lies the rub.
Rather than being reactive to changes in the status quo in the Taiwan Strait,
Washington needs a proactive policy that pre-empts such "changes" or sanctions them
when the changes become too extreme. This is far more important in managing
Chinese attacks on what might be called the "real status quo" than Taiwan's desperate
efforts to articulate the state that actually exists. It would therefore be a useful
exercise, before trying to react to some change in the status quo, for Bush's National
Security Council to actually define "the status quo as we define it," -- even in a
classified document if that is really needed.
What follows are some specific pre-emptive countermeasures that would signal our
increasing pressure on China and Taiwan:
The White House should clearly state that the 1,000-plus missiles facing Taiwan are
provocative. Imagine that these missiles were arrayed by Iran against Israel or North
Korea against Japan -- 1,000 Chinese missiles aimed at Taiwan should be no less
alarming. Washington must not allow itself to be a hostage to these weapons.
If Washington cannot convince China to dismantle these missiles, which have indeed
changed the status quo and are not of a defensive nature, then the US administration
should consider adopting late US president Ronald Reagan's "Zero Option" response
to the Soviet "intermediate nuclear force" in Europe. Reagan and then British prime
minister Margaret Thatcher gained support for the deployment of Pershing II missiles
in West Germany as a strategic response to Soviet deployments of SS-20 missiles in
Eastern Europe.
This would mean supporting Taiwan's development of ballistic or cruise missiles
capable of hitting Chinese targets in an effort to augment the negligible deterrent
value (despite their significant defensive value) of Taiwan's anti-ballistic missile
defense systems.
The White House should also reaffirm Reagan's so-called "six assurances" of July 14,
1982, that the US would neither seek to mediate between the People's Republic of
Taipei Times /March 14, 2007
11
China (PRC) and Taiwan, nor "exert pressure on Taiwan to come to the bargaining
table." Of course, the US is also committed to make available defensive arms and
defensive services to Taipei to help Taiwan meet its self-defense needs. The US does,
after all, "believe a secure and self-confident Taiwan is a Taiwan that is more capable
of engaging in political interaction and dialogue with the PRC."
It is vital that the US administration, and particularly Bush and his successors,
sympathize with the existential challenge facing Taiwan, rather than harangue the
nation's leaders about Washington's precious, yet undefined "status quo."
The one thing that Taiwan's democratically elected leaders at either end of the
political blue-green spectrum simply cannot, and will not, do is to compromise the
legitimacy of the Republic of China's governance. Sovereignty over Taiwan, they
insist, belongs solely to the people of Taiwan, and in no way to the "sole legal
government of China" in Beijing.
The US government must also understand that so long as Taiwan refuses to accept
Beijing's sovereignty, Beijing's long-term strategy will be to isolate Taiwan in the
international community to the most extreme extent possible.
Thus, when China gets obstreperous on the Taiwan issue, White House and Cabinet
spokespersons should publicly articulate the common-sense stance that "the United
States does not recognize or accept that China has any right whatsoever under
international law to use or threaten the use of force against democratic Taiwan." (This
has the advantage of actually being US policy, but it has never been stated in public.)
In background to journalists and reporters, US "senior officials" could explain that
even a Taiwanese declaration of independence would just be "words on paper" and
would not change any country's behavior or affect China's security posture? This
wording would make it clear that the US does not now recognize, and never has
recognized, China's territorial claims to Taiwan.
Finally, a diplomatic deal might be struck with the "elected leaders of Taiwan" that
they would refrain from verbal challenges to the so-called status quo in the Strait in
return for authoritative US expressions of support like those described above.
Without a formal and detailed definition of "the status quo as we define it,"
Washington simply cedes the terms of the debate to Beijing and Taipei while US
Taipei Times /March 14, 2007
12
diplomats are left to flounder around reactively as tensions heighten. That is a recipe
for a catastrophe.
The term status quo means "the state in which [anything is]"; existing conditions;
unchanged position. (Harper Dictionary of Foreign Terms, Third Edition.)
John Tkacik, Jr. is senior research fellow of the Heritage Foundation.