KMT rolling back media freedom

Editorial in Taipei Times

Friday, Feb 06, 2009, Page 8

It appears as if the National Communications Commission (NCC) has been added to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government’s armory in its battle to neuter the media and stifle criticism of the current administration’s shortcomings.

This became apparent after the NCC on Tuesday singled out SET TV’s political chat show Da Hua News (大話新聞, or “Talking Show”) for censure.

The commission’s failure to produce evidence of the show’s alleged transgressions speaks volumes for the professionalism of a body that was ruled “unconstitutional” by the Council of Grand Justices in 2006 and, despite cosmetic changes, still leaves major doubts hanging over its neutrality.

The NCC’s rebuke also comes just a month after Talking Show cut its weekend programs as part of a “cost-cutting” exercise. News of the cut came shortly after a raid on the home of the channel’s president by Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau officials.

Rumors that the show’s popular host, Cheng Hung-yi (鄭弘儀), would be replaced or that the show might be dropped altogether — a strange move considering it is rated the nation’s most popular political talk show — had to be scotched by station officials at the company’s year-end party.

Add to this Wednesday’s NCC-proposed amendment to the Satellite Radio and Television Act (衛星廣播電視法) that would set stricter fact-checking regulations on such shows and see repeat offenders removed from the airwaves, and it could be interpreted as part of a concerted attack on one of the most vocal critics of government policy.

This seems even more the case when one considers that government-friendly political talk shows that present gossip and rumor as fact on a daily basis have not come in for similar criticism and treatment.

While the NCC may receive complaints from viewers unhappy with the subject or content discussed on any particular show, if the views presented on air are backed up with facts and figures then there should be no case to answer, regardless of the sensitivities of viewers.

The media’s right to broadcast opinions should be judged on whether what is said is based on fact, not on whether certain sections of the public disagree with it. This is at the heart of the NCC’s proposed amendment, but whether any law will be applied evenhandedly or just used to attack government critics remains to be seen.

Who would have imagined that when President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) praised Singapore’s government during a visit in 2007 that, once back in power, he and his party would use the “rule of law” as a premise to replicate Singapore’s infamously sanitized, ­government-controlled news media?

But with the well-documented government interference in the affairs of the Central News Agency, Radio Taiwan International and Public Television Services as evidence, and now the pressure being ratcheted up on Talking Show, things certainly seem to be heading in that direction.

While he was in Singapore, Ma also said that Taiwan was different because it emphasized democracy. Ma should know that media freedom is vital to the survival of any democracy, especially one where a single party has a vice-like grip on all the instruments of state.

That is, unless his administration is intent on rolling back Taiwan’s democracy in the same way it is rolling back its media freedom.

The World's Blind Spot

While many lament China's attitude towards Tibet and highlights the obstinacy of China's dictatorial regime, one has to also note that the lack of pressure from democratic governments to address human rights abuses committed by China gives China no motivation to correct its brutish and oppressive behaviour. Western nations have chosen to kowtow and pander to China's demands, rather than using concrete political measures to express deep dissatisfaction with China's abrasive attitudes.

Until the United States and countries in the European Union give a clear, unambiguous signal, that China's treatment of Tibet, its intimidation of democratic Taiwan, and its continual suppression of fundamental rights is unacceptable, China will continue to assert its expansionist and repressive agenda, to the detriment of its populace and its neighbours.

Dr. Stan Lai, Director for Public Relations
Formosan Association for Public Affairs Europe

KMT rights rollback cannot be whitewashed

Article occurs in Taiwan News

A flood of international criticism by global human rights organizations, democratic governments and prominent legal scholars and academics in the China and Taiwan fields has evidently touched a sore nerve in the restored Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) government of President Ma Ying-jeou.

After over a decade of being seen as a model of democratic transition from four decades of KMT martial law rule and a lighthouse for human rights and civic freedoms in East Asia under former Taiwan-born president Lee Teng-hui and ex-president Chen Shui-bian and his Democratic Progressive Party administration, Taiwan has again become a prominent human rights issue after only six months of restored KMT governance.

The sensitivity of the KMT government to global concern and its inability to respond sincerely to international and domestic criticism were displayed by the response issued Tuesday under Justice Minister Wang Ching-feng to over 20 prominent scholars who published an "Open Letter on Erosion of Justice in Taiwan" earlier this month in the wake of a series of unwarranted detentions of serving and former DPP officials, such as DPP Yunlin County Commissioner Su Chih-fen, and other state violations of civic freedoms and human rights.

Wang's response utilized the prime technique used by the KMT during its martial law period and by the People's Republic of China today in reacting to human rights criticism, namely denial.

For example, the justice minister attempted to whitewash the dark past of Taiwan judicial history by trying to rebut concerns that the KMT government may be using the judicial system "to get even with members of the DPP government" as "groundless" since such a claims would create "the misimpression (sic) that Taiwan's judicial system is susceptible to political manipulation, which quite simply is untrue."

In fact, the KMT martial law regime unabashedly utilized as an instrument of repression from the late 1940s through the early 1990s and during which time its spokespersons claimed that there were "no political prisoners."

Only gradually and by no means fully has the Taiwan judiciary been weaned from its past role as a tool for the use of law as a means of authoritarian rule into a defender of the impartial rule by law through the democratizing reforms under former president Lee Teng-hui and the DPP administration.

However, their efforts to modernize the judiciary and promote its independence were stymied by pro-KMT vested interests and by the KMT legislative majority, which refused to approve major revisions to the Judicial Yuan Organization Law and rejected Chen's first nomination for supreme public prosecutor precisely because former deputy justice minister Hsieh Wen-ting voiced his intent resist pressure from all parties.

With this foundation, all the KMT government needs to do to "interfere" in the judicial process is to set standards. Ma himself set the stage for an "open season" on the former president and DPP officials in August in Santo Domingo by making an inaccurate comparison of Chen with the late Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, while Wang herself inappropriately discussed the Chen case on pro-KMT talk shows even before the former president was listed as a defendant.

The promotion of numerous Taipei City police district chiefs in the wake of the grossly excessive use of police during the visit of PRC envoy Chen Yunlin earlier this month also sends a ringing signal that the KMT government priorities "order" above the protection of the constitutional rights of our citizens.

Similarly, while Wang correctly noted that the Code of Criminal Procedures gives prosecutors do have a legal power of asking for investigative detention, she neglected to respond to widespread charges in even pro-KMT domestic media that this power is being grossly abused.

As noted in an editorial in the vernacular China Times Wednesday, "if those who cooperate with investigations are released on bail and those who do not cooperate are placed under incommunicado detention, is that not enough to make clear whether they are being detained to extract confessions?"

The KMT government's aim to pull wool over the eyes of foreign and domestic audiences was also exposed in claims that "the U.S. government has expressed its full confidence" in Taiwan's judicial system.

Actually, State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack on Nov. 18 stated that the legal process involving former president Chen "is a matter for Taiwan's legal system to resolve. We are confident in Taiwan's democracy and its legal system, and we have every expectation that the process will be transparent, fair, and impartial."

The most important word used by the U.S. State Department spokesman is "expectation," a term is by no means an endorsement but a diplomatic signal not to stray one inch from the standards of being "transparent, fair and impartial."

In sum, President Ma, Wang and other KMT government leaders may not appreciate that the world community has higher "expectations" for the Taiwan government precisely because it is supposed to be a democracy and may not welcome any moves by the KMT government that threaten to extinguish the lamp in Taiwan's democratic lighthouse and retard hopes to promote democracy and human rights in China and the rest of Asia.

Taiwanese and Hakka Resources

Of course Hakka is an important part of Taiwanese heritage, and both Hakka and Taiwanese need to be promoted.

Here are some links provided by the Taiwanese government:
Taiwanese learning resources
Hakka learning resources

Speak Taiwanese!

What really bugs me is the disappearance of Taiwanese language speaking ability in the younger generation of Taiwanese. They themselves are at fault, their unwillingness to try to speak a language other than the dry, boring, Mandarin that they learn anyway in school. Their parents are also at fault - despite their ability to speak Taiwanese, they don't bother teaching or conversing with their kids in Taiwanese.

Taiwanese is a language in danger! Perhaps in two generations, it will disappear - what a shame that would be.

Besides, Taiwanese is much cooler language than Mandarin, and the subtleties of Taiwanese just cannot be expressed in Mandarin.

Here are some websites to help for those who want a reference for learning Taiwanese:
Tailingua
Intermediate Taiwanese Grammar
台灣字

And remember, when you are in Taiwan: speak Taiwanese!!!

Endangered Democracy

Taiwan's democratic transition from an authoritarian regime to a fledgling democracy is considered a political miracle. In the months since President Ma Ying-jeou took office, Taiwan is in danger of losing its sovereignty, with its democratic institutions at risk of being swallowed by China's expansionist ambitions.

Although support for Mr. Ma, whose party administered a dictatorship on Taiwan for 40 years, has plummeted to record lows, he is determined to proceed with an agenda that compromises the independence of Taiwan's educational and economic systems. His insistence on normalizing trade relations with a country that threatens Taiwan with more than 1200 missiles has most recently left Taiwanese consumers vulnerable to melamine-contaminated food.

The Taiwanese people overcame many years of martial law dictatorship to build a dynamic democracy that respects the fundamental rights and liberties of its citizens. Unfortunately, Mr. Ma's consessions to China have placed years of hard-fought achievements at grave risk.

Dr. Stan Lai, Director for Public Relations
Formosan Association for Public Affairs Europe

Building a new DPP on strength and unity

By Liu Shih-chung 劉世忠

Taipei Times Article

Taiwanese politics change quickly and yesterday’s political stars become today’s political losers.

President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration knows this well, and so does the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).

Who would have imagined that after only 50 days in power, Ma’s public approval would drop from 58 percent at the time of the presidential election to about 30 percent now?

The inability of Premier Liu Chao-shiuan’s (劉兆玄) Cabinet to tackle rising consumer and oil prices and the freefalling stock market are only part of the reason for the public’s reaction. The key reason for the government’s loss of public support is Ma’s failure to deliver on his campaign promises.

Ma’s rise to perhaps the most popular politician in Taiwan was mainly a result of meeting the public’s taste in backing away from ideological rhetoric and framing himself as a gentle problem-solver.

But in reality, Ma is a consummate politician. He anticipates what people want to hear and tells the public whatever keeps them satisfied. The biggest question now is whether Ma is a man of action and efficiency.

Deja vu? The fact that the DPP was not defeated by Ma and his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) but by itself deserves more attention. Once voters questioned its integrity and held its misconduct up against principles of honesty and morality, it was hard for the DPP to regain support.

Public distrust of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and the DPP led voters to place their hopes in Ma and the KMT because they believed the new government would bring immediate results. Its failure to meet expectations has naturally created a strong public backlash.

With the government’s poor performance, how can the DPP rebuild its image and regain public trust?

The DPP government’s biggest problem was it promised more than it could achieve. Sometimes the commitments were made dishonestly, and even worse was the misconduct associated with some DPP officials.

We all make mistakes, but the difference is that politicians’ mistakes make the front page. So politicians — good ones at least — develop an ability to recover from a foul-up.

Under the chairmanship of Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), the DPP has displayed a different and more positive image. Not only has Tsai introduced a rational strategy for monitoring the KMT, she has also been carefully developing new skills of coordination and leadership within the party’s grassroot support.

A recent poll released by TVBS showed Tsai to be the most popular political figure in Taiwan, with a near 50 percent approval rating — compared with less than 30 percent for Ma and Liu.

What Tsai and the DPP need most is to incorporate elements of strength, self-discipline, decisiveness and effective execution to fulfill the role of a loyal opposition.

The power reshuffle at last weekend’s party congress showed some political wrestling between different factions and senior leaders, but the DPP should avoid pointing fingers. A re-examination must be conducted from the bottom up. A closer relationship between party headquarters, the legislative caucus and local party branches must be established. Most importantly, the DPP must reinforce its connection with the rank and file and recruit more independent and attractive talent.

By taking the theme of strength and unity and applying it to anti-corruption, economic rejuvenation, law enforcement, environmental protection and national security, the DPP can win back public support.

China’s List of Olympic Don'ts

This article in the NY Times

Now that the shock of the earthquake (which they could not control) in Sichuan Province has dissipated somewhat, China’s leaders are focusing again on something that they think they can control: people. Sports fans attending the 2008 Olympics in Beijing will have a long list of rules to carry in their pockets along with their tickets.

On its Web site last week, the Chinese Olympic organizing committee listed a set of restrictions for the 500,000 overseas visitors expected in August. Olympic spectators are being told not to bring in “anything detrimental” to China, including printed materials, photos, records or movies. Religious or political banners or slogans are banned. So are rallies, demonstrations and marches — unless approved by authorities in advance. It also says that visitors with mental illnesses and sexually transmitted diseases will be barred from the country.

We shudder at how those judgments — many of them highly subjective or intrusive — will be made.

The International Olympic Committee has long prohibited political activities at Olympic venues, and we respect the goal of trying to put aside divisions while celebrating a common humanity. But Beijing is using those restrictions for its own authoritarian ends.

To win the right to host the Games, China promised to improve its human-rights record. It keeps moving mostly in the opposite direction. In recent days, authorities effectively disbarred two prominent human-rights lawyers who volunteered to defend Tibetans charged in violent anti-China protests. They also broke up a gathering of 100 parents who were peacefully protesting shoddy school construction and the deaths of their children in the May 12 earthquake.

And while authorities initially relaxed restrictions on journalists and aid workers after the earthquake, they have again tightened up. Local journalists have been discouraged from covering the parents’ protests, and international television networks have complained that security requirements will limit coverage of the Olympics.

There’s an inherent contradiction between China’s desire to invite the world to the Olympics and its effort to deny those visitors — and its own people — the most basic freedoms. Last week, an I.O.C. official said he is convinced the Games would be a “force for good” in China. The committee and Western governments need to remind Beijing that the world is watching, and so far the picture isn’t good.

Don't coddle Beijing – it must account for its role in Darfur

Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian general who was head of the UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda, knows a thing or two about genocide and protecting human rights....

Here's what he has to say in the Globe and Mail:



Many consider it taboo to speak of the genocide in Darfur and the upcoming Beijing Olympics in the same breath. I disagree entirely. I believe the two should be firmly linked in the public's mind, and I said so in blunt terms during a recent CBC interview.

I was quickly and severely criticized in print for my comments by journalist Lysiane Gagnon and academic Christian Constantin. They seemed to think I needed a history lesson on Chinese political progress and a reminder of the West's sins, including our willingness to trade with countries whose human-rights records are shaky or even dismal.

There's no doubt Western countries have demonstrated abysmal judgment in various crises over the past couple of centuries, and their failures and misdeeds need retelling and analysis lest they be repeated. Western insouciance and intransigence over the past few decades alone have been staggering in terms of human suffering – think of Sierra Leone, Rwanda, the Congo, Eastern Europe and Afghanistan, to name a few.

For the moment, however, the crisis screaming out to the West and the rest of the international community is the genocide taking place in Darfur. China has been obstructionist in the UN Security Council while blithely supplying Khartoum with modern arms in exchange for oil. This has enabled Sudan to systematically kill an estimated 300,000 Darfurians since 2003, and to harass, torture, rape and starve the 21/2 million it has displaced.

The Chinese government wants us to ignore its central role in all this, and to laud it as the gracious host of the 2008 Olympic Games. Beijing's painstaking efforts to paint itself in a positive image attests to its obsession with being unconditionally accepted as an open, modern, honourable and progressive player by the international community.

Based on its behaviour in the Sudan, however – I liken it to that of a colonial power – the Chinese government cannot possibly be afforded the accolades it so eagerly craves. Led by liberal democracies and middle powers, including Canada, the international community must protest against Beijing's role in fuelling Darfur's genocide. It must use the leverage of the very international disapprobation China fears to make it stop supporting Khartoum and obstructing the deployment of the desperately needed 26,000-strong United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur.

Ms. Gagnon and Mr. Constantin assert that Beijing is too proud to give in to Western pressure. Moreover, they say, public pressure by the West would only push China to withdraw behind its Communist dictatorship. We need to challenge these assumptions. In any event, remaining silent while China continues to help Khartoum hammer away at helpless civilians with gun ships and co-ordinated ground attacks with the brutal janjaweed militia would be repugnant and morally indefensible.

Fortunately, international criticism is not the only force at work. Despite the government's repression, Chinese student, labour and intellectual movements have been fighting for democratic and political reforms for a long time. Recall the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, which emerged from the disaffection of ordinary Chinese citizens. The country's growing middle class, numbering about 300 million, who seek a better standard of living and greater freedoms, will also push their government to become a respected and reliable international economic power.

According to Ms. Gagnon and Mr. Constantin, China has made significant strides in justice and tolerance. They remind us of some of the great economic, cultural, political and social progress the country has made. But let us not forget that it still routinely engages in torture and arbitrary imprisonment. We must also acknowledge that, with its 2.2 million soldiers, the Chinese government has ample ability to contribute to peace efforts in Darfur, not just to send in advisers to teach the Sudanese forces how to use the weapons it provides against defenceless civilians.

In addition to the existing political, economic and diplomatic channels, we must use the Olympics to pressure China and enlighten its people about what is happening in Darfur, and why the international community is outraged. For now, China keeps its Chinese citizens hyped on Olympic glory, insulated from outside media and ignorant of its dirty work in Darfur. It's a despicable scenario that we cannot allow to persist.

Senator Roméo Dallaire is a retired lieutenant-general and former commander of the UN Assistance Mission in Rwanda

Athletes should think twice about heading to Beijing: Elvis Stojko

This appeared in the Globe and Mail:

Two-time Olympic medallist Elvis Stojko says Canadian athletes should “make a stand” for human rights and think twice about heading to the Beijing Summer Games.

Mr. Stojko, who won silver medals at the 1994 and 1998 Winter Olympics, says he would consider boycotting the Games if he were still a competing athlete.

Mr. Stojko made the comments during a rally protesting China's human rights record outside the Ontario legislature Saturday afternoon.

About 200 people showed up for the rally, which included lighting up a mock Olympic torch.

The three-time world figure skating champion also says it's unacceptable for countries to muzzle athletes' opinions, since the athletes are the ones representing their countries.

China's government has faced mounting criticism over its human rights record, and drew fire for a recent crackdown against anti-government protests in Tibet.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has confirmed he will not attend the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Games but Canada has rejected the idea of boycotting the Olympics.

“I know for me, it would be extremely difficult to be able to go compete in a country that was hosting the games, but don't exemplify what the games are being held for,” Mr. Stojko told The Canadian Press.

He added athletes have an ability to raise awareness about important issues.

“People should know what's going on and athletes have a chance to be able to do that if they wish,” said Mr. Stojko, who added China's treatment of its people is dragging “negative energy” into the world tournament.

But Steve Keogh, communications manager from the Canadian Olympic Committee, said athletes are free to say what they want.

“There's been no instruction to our athletes not to say anything, they can say anything they wish.”

Mr. Keogh added that Canada is a signatory of the Olympic charter, which prohibits athletes from making any “proactive demonstration while in an Olympic venue.”

Ma is on the wrong side of history

Published in the Taipei Times on March 17, 2008

By Gerrit van der Wees

As Taiwan prepares for the presidential election, the people face a choice for their future. This goes beyond a choice for the next four years: It is more than a continuation of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government under the new leadership of Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), or a return to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) under new leadership, that of Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).

The choice between the two men also harbors longer-term consequences for the future of the country: continuation of the trend towards increasing emphasis on Taiwan's own identity and treatment of Taiwan as a nation-state in its own right, or closer ties with Beijing, eventually drifting towards absorption by China in one way or another.

Hsieh is an advocate of the former line: Building on the legacy of the fight for democracy in the 1970s and 1980s, and the consolidation of democracy under former president Lee Teng-hui and President Chen Shui-bian(陳水扁), he will carefully maneuver to safeguard Taiwan's sovereignty and expand its international position, while attempting to keep China at bay.

Ma is an advocate of eventual unification, but realizes that he cannot move too swiftly since this would anger the Taiwanese majority and make the US and Japan -- already apprehensive about China's military buildup -- increasingly nervous, so he will emphasize the "status quo" while gradually pushing the envelope toward closer ties with China.

How will they perform if they are elected? How will they stand up to pressure from China -- or from the US for that matter? Are they committed to democracy?

To get a glimpse into their character, it is useful to examine how they acted and reacted in an earlier era: when Taiwan was suffering under martial law in the 1970s and 1980s, and when they rose to prominence, each in his own right.

Both Hsieh and Ma were educated to be lawyers. But there the similarity ends.

Hsieh is a native Taiwanese, who became well-known in Taiwan in 1980, when -- together with a number of other lawyers including Chen -- he voluntarily took up the defense of eight prominent leaders of the tangwai (outside-the-party) democracy movement (including Vice President Annette Lu [呂秀蓮] and Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu [陳菊]), who had been arrested and imprisoned by the KMT regime on spurious political charges.

Hsieh was thus willing to stick his neck out and stand up for justice when it counted -- and when few others dared to do so. In the 1980s he became a member of the Taipei City Council, and later was elected to the Legislative Yuan. He was a founding member of the DPP in 1986. Ten years later, in 1996, he was the DPP's vice presidential candidate in Taiwan's first-ever democratic presidential elections (together with Peng Ming-min), but lost to Lee.

Ma, on the other hand, is a Mainlander, who was born in Hong Kong and whose parents came over to Taiwan with Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石). His father was a high-ranking KMT official, and young Ma grew up in the political elite of the Chinese Nationalists. In the 1970s he went to Harvard for his graduate studies, but several of his Taiwanese fellow students complained that Ma was a "student spy" who collected data for the secret police in Taiwan.

After his return to Taiwan In 1981, he quickly rose to prominence within the KMT. He started as an aide and personal translator for then-president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), and in 1984 became deputy-secretary general of the KMT. In 1993 he was appointed minister of justice by Lee and served in that position until 1996.

Let us examine what his position was during the crucial moments in Taiwan's transition to democracy: In 1985-1986, when Taiwan was still under martial law, he was an ardent defender of martial law, arguing that it enhanced "stability" on the island. He also defended the long prison sentences given to proponents of democracy and human rights.

In lengthy letters to foreign governments and political parties which expressed concern about the lack of democracy in Taiwan, Ma waxed eloquently in defense of the indefensible.

Finally, after many hearings and resolutions in the US Congress by senators such as Ted Kennedy and Claiborne Pell and representatives Jim Leach and Steven Solarz, and after increasing pressure from the bottom up in Taiwan, Chiang Ching-kuo relented and lifted martial law in 1987. Ma had been on the wrong side of history.

Almost the same thing happened in 1991 and 1992, when the democratic movement started to push for abolishment of the "eternal" legislators who had been elected in China in 1947, and who were in their 80s and 90s still representing "China" in the legislature and National Assembly. Again, Ma came out against such changes and wanted to maintain a semblance of "China" representation in the legislature.

Fortunately, Lee had vision and pushed through the legislative reforms. Again, Ma was on the wrong side of history.

Fascinatingly, three years later, the same pattern occurred: Lee started to push for direct presidential elections -- to replace the anachronistic system in which the KMT-controlled National Assembly had rubberstamped the KMT choice for president.

Ma was one of the KMT opponents of this move toward full-fledged democracy. Again, his instincts had been to preserve an outdated status quo, and oppose democratic change.

Ma was a follower, who went along with developments when they became inevitable, while Hsieh stood up when it counted, and defended his principles.

The choice for the people of Taiwan is thus between someone who has opposed democratic change, and wants to edge closer to a repressive, undemocratic China, and someone who has been at the forefront of democratic change, and wants to propel Taiwan forwards in the international family of nations.

It will be a decisive moment in Taiwan's history.

Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.

The West's double standards

With Western powers such as the UK and the US recognising the independence of Kosovo from Serbia, Kosovar leaders are rejoicing. Such recognition is also welcome to human rights and democracy activists, who also remember the horrors of the "ethnic cleansing" of Albanians, instigated by the regime of Slobodan Milosevic.

While these Western nations admirably welcome Kosovo into the international community, they are guilty of double standards. While they hope to assist Kosovars in shaking off the shackles of the past, they are complicit in isolating Taiwan, in their attempt to curry favour with China. Taiwan's past is also ridden with unfortunate injustices, and its transformation into a full democracy has been nothing short of remarkable. The UK and the US however, refuse to express their opposition to China's zeal to annex Taiwan, and are hardly perturbed at the alarming military threats that China regularly makes against Taiwan.

Western leaders apparently believe that democracy and freedom are important in Europe, but can be abandoned in Asia.

MOFA condemns Chinese action at WHO board meet

Published in the Taipei Times

By Jenny W. Hsu
STAFF REPORTER, WITH CNA
Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008, Page 1
China ambushed the nation's allies on the Executive Board of the WHO by robbing them of the opportunity to speak up for Taiwan, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said yesterday.

El Salvador, Paraguay and Sao Tome and Principe had jointly proposed a draft resolution calling for the International Health Regulations (IHR) of 2005 to be extended to include non-members like Taiwan.

The bill, which was initially scheduled for consideration during yesterday's meeting of the 122nd session of the WHO's Executive Board, was successfully blocked by China after it unexpectedly requested that its review be advanced to Monday 10 minutes before the day's meeting was to conclude, when most of the bill's sponsors were absent.

"We strongly condemn China for disregarding the health rights of Taiwanese. We also protest against the WHO for ignoring our allies' right to speak on behalf of their draft resolution," ministry spokeswoman Phoebe Yeh (葉非比) said.

Yeh said China has never cared about the health of Taiwanese, as shown by its failure last year to inform Taiwan of a shipment of potentially toxic corn from Thailand.

She said Paraguay had yesterday proposed an amendment stipulating that all countries must be included in the framework in order to prevent gaps in global efforts against disease.

Quoting the "universal application" clause within the IHR, Paraguay said China had no legitimate authority to represent Taiwan's health interests.

Yeh told the Taipei Times that representatives from San Tome and Principe and El Salvador had also condemned Beijing's claim to represent Taiwan's health interests.

Belize, although not a board member, also spoke in favor of Taiwan.

At press time, the meeting had not been adjourned.

It was reported that China also proposed its own amendment in an effort to block Taiwan's representation in the health agreement. Sri Lanka and Djibouti seconded China's motion.

Shen Lyu-hsun (沈呂巡), the nation's representative to Geneva, said the incident showed that China's suppression of Taiwan had intensified. He protested what he called the unfair ruling by WHO Executive Board Chairman Balaji Sadasivan in rejecting the bill, saying Beijing had wielded its influence to sabotage Taipei's chance.

"Unless the WHO does something about it, Taiwan will remain a gap in the global disease surveillance system after the Executive Board meeting concludes," Shen said.

During Monday's meeting, Li Baodong (李保東), China's permanent representative to the UN in Geneva, said the draft resolution had challenged the "one China" principle. He said that with statehood as a prerequisite for implementation of the IHR, Beijing had already stated last May that the IHR applies to the "entire territory of the People's Republic of China, including ... the Taiwan Province."

An April agreement between Beijing and the WHO on Taiwan's role in the IHR stipulated that China's National Focal Point would handle routine IHR matters through existing cross-strait health communication channels, Li said.

Brown and China

Despite Prime Minister Gordon Brown's enthusiasm to open up new avenues for trade with China, he must not forget the threats and dangers to human rights, peace, and stability that the Chinese dictatorship still poses. China's deployment of over 1000 missiles aimed at Taiwan is the single most contributing threat to the fragile peace enjoyed in East Asia. Its continued persecution of Tibetan activists and Falun Dafa adherents contradicts the "peaceful rise" of China that its leaders attempt to sell.

Mr. Brown must ensure that British views on human rights, democratic development, and fundamental freedoms are expressed clearly to the Chinese dictatorship. This trip is an excellent opportunity for Britain to press for responsible actions and continued reforms in the Chinese dictatorship. Mr. Brown must make the most of this chance.

Dr. Stan Lai, Spokesperson
Formosan Association for Public Affairs Europe

President Chen confers honor on EU parliamentarian

This article from the Taipei Times
article link

Legislative elections and referendums: President Chen confers honor on EU parliamentarian

By Jenny W. Hsu
STAFF REPORTER
Saturday, Jan 12, 2008, Page 3
Taiwanese politicians should set aside their differences and agree on a united foreign affairs policy in order to safeguard the nation's diplomatic future, the chairman of the Taiwan Friendship Group at the European Parliament said yesterday.

Georg Jarzembowski, who is on his 11th visit to Taiwan, said after the "gun smoke" of the election has cleared, both the pan-blues and pan-greens should come together to formulate and define a "broadly based" foreign policy in an effort to gain the support of the nation's "powerhouse" friends, such as the US, Japan and the EU.

Jarzembowksi said the most important task for his group is to talk to the various parties to get their impression as to whether their opponents were cheating.

"We don't have any mistrust of the parties," he said.

His team are scheduled to visit two polling stations and the Central Election Commission today to monitor the vote-counting process.

EU OPPOSITION

When asked about the EU's opposition to the planned referendums on Taiwan's bid to join the UN, Jarzembowksi said he was aware of the two versions proposed by the Democratic Progressive Party and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and he believed it was the right of the Taiwanese to determine how they wanted to be represented.

He said his group has initiated a motion at the European Parliament to support Taiwan's execution of the referendums. So far, over 100 parlimentarians have added their signatures to the motion, he said.

Jazermbowski also said the existing cross-strait tension is unlikely to be assuaged unless there is fresh dialogue between to the two governments.

He admitted, however, it would take much "patience" and time before a dialogue based on an equal footing would become a reality.

HONOR

Earlier yesterday, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) conferred an Order of Brilliant Star with Grand Cordon on Jarzembowski to honor him for his contribution in enhancing the friendship between the European Parliament and Taiwan.

Chen expressed appreciation and gratitude to the European Parliament for its support in opposing the lifting of its embargo on arms to China, backing the nation's bid to join the WHO and in urging China to remove its missiles targeting Taiwan.

"I believe the reason the European Parliament has been very supportive of Taiwan is that Taiwanese share the same universal values as the Europeans, which are democracy, freedom and human rights," Chen said.

Jarzembowski said he sincerely appreciated the award because he has been urging the international community to recognize the sovereignty of Taiwan and has worked to improve relations between the European Parliament and Taiwan since he took up the position as head of the Taiwan Friendship Group of the European Parliament in 1999.

ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY SHIH HSIU-CHUAN

KMT and Ma Ying-Jeou disrespect human rights again...

Well, what a surprise.....the KMT and presidential candidate Ma Ying-Jeou don't get human rights once again. In fact, it seems that they've never ever understood the concept of human rights.

They are currently fighting tooth and nail to keep the legacy of Taiwan's most notorious dictator enshrined in Taipei. This stupid Chiang-Kai Shek memorial is finally being disposed of by the DPP government, but of course Ma Ying-Jeou and Taipei KMT mayor Hau Lung-Bin are insistent that this monument to a cruel, terrible dictator stay.

In Germany, no one dares to commorate Hitler, as his human rights record and blatant destruction of Germany and persecution of the Jewish people are abhorred. Why then does the KMT want to honour Chiang Kai-Shek, who is basically the Hitler of Taiwan. How can the KMT claim to have reformed? How can they claim to respect human rights?

It is clear that anyone who values human rights must turn their backs on the stupid KMT and their backward ways. Ma Ying-Jeou can no longer claim to have learned lessons from the KMT's abhorrent past....

China-Europe Relations Get Complicated

Brookings Northeast Asia Commentary, May 2007

David Shambaugh, Professor and Director, China Policy Program, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies

_____

After a decade of rosy rhetoric and steadily improving ties, China-Europe relations entered a more complicated phase. While the relationship between China and Europe has developed remarkably quickly and broadly since 1995, it now seems that the relationship may be passing from the "honeymoon" phase into the "marriage" phase of the relationship. Both parties are beginning to realize the complexities of the relationship, the fact that they do not see many issues identically, that outside factors and actors contribute to shaping the relationship-but that mutual areas of common interest and cooperation remain substantial and dominant.

The release in October 2006 of the European Commission's latest official "Communication" on China, and the accompanying policy paper on EU-China trade and investment, signaled and made explicit many of the concerns about China that had been bubbling beneath the surface in Europe. In the Communication, for the first time in such a policy document, the European Commission made a number of requests of China.




* "open its markets and ensure fair market competition";
* "reduce and eliminate trade and non-tariff barriers";
* "level the [commercial] playing field";
* "fully implement WTO obligations";
* "better protect intellectual property rights";
* "end forced technology transfers";
* "stop granting prohibited subsidies";
* "work on clean energy technologies";
* "be a more active and responsible energy partner";
* "ensure balance in science and technology cooperation";
* "[recognize] the international responsibilities commensurate to its economic importance and role as a permanent member of the UN Security Council";
* "better protect human rights";
* "[ensure] more accountable government";
* be more "results oriented with higher quality exchanges and concrete results" in the human rights dialogue;
* ratify the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
* enter into formal dialogue with the EU and "improve transparency" concerning aid policies in Africa;
* "maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait";
* improve "transparency on military expenditures and objectives";
* "comply with all non-proliferation and disarmament treaties";
* "strengthen export controls of WMD-related materials".

This laundry list of requests gave the 2006 Communication a harder edge than any of its predecessors, but it also reflected the new sobriety in Europe concerning certain aspects of China's policies and behavior. The European Council ratified the Communication at its meeting on December 11, 2006, and produced its own 23-point list of observations and concerns about the relationship.

These documents took China's government and Europe Watchers by surprise. Both the tone and substance of the documents reflected a departure from the effusive rhetoric and lofty goals set forth in previous Communications, and led some notable Chinese Europe Watchers in Beijing to accuse Brussels of adopting confrontational or "containment" policies similar to what they sometimes perceive from the United States. Privately, Chinese Foreign Ministry officials apparently assured their official European counterparts that they "understood" European concerns and were not overly alarmed by the tone or the substance of the Communication. The Chinese decision to move ahead with negotiations on a new EU-PRC Partnership & Cooperation Agreement, and the warm reception given EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner in launching the negotiations in January 2007, are perhaps indicative of the more pragmatic official reaction. Nonetheless, the EU documents do reflect a change in tone, substance, and approach to China from past precedent.

Shaping the Future of Sino-European Relations

Looking to the future, what variables will likely shape EU policy towards China? Six sets of variables can be identified.

The first is the impact of trade on the European economies and workforce. With an EU trade deficit with China in excess of 150 billion in 2006 (total China-EU trade topped ?260 billion in 2006), high unemployment rates in several countries (especially France, Germany, and Italy), hollowed-out tertiary industries (particularly in the Mediterranean countries), and relative lack of competitiveness in the "New 12" Central European member states, European economies are increasingly feeling the "China factor." Thus far, it has not gotten the political traction that it has in the United States, but voices of concern and protectionism can be heard across the continent. European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson has publicly indicated, on a number of occasions, that these economic concerns can quickly snowball and possibly have a series of negative consequences-economically and politically.

The second variable is the degree of Chinese responsiveness to the numerous issues of concern noted in the 2006 Communication. These are not demands, but they are more than "markers." They are serious requests put forward by the European side, in the spirit of partnership, to advance the China-Europe relationship. To be sure, China has its requests too-notably lifting the arms embargo and granting of Market Economy Status-that the EU needs to take seriously and be responsive to.

The third variable concerns relations between the EU member states and the European Commission and Council, and between the European Parliament and the Commission/Council. Prior to the release of the 2006 Communication on China it was apparent that civil society, the China expert community, and NGOs in several member states were unsettled and discontent with the European Commission's ambitious and optimistic view of China. Many accused the Commission of being naïve. The manner in which the EU Commission and Council (mis)handled the arms embargo issue, creating an intra-European and transatlantic policy fiasco, only emboldened the critics of Brussels' China policy.

It seems that the European Commission seriously reflected on this subterranean discontent between 2004 and 2006, undertook a rethinking of the relationship and a reexamination of Europe's interests, and incorporated its findings in the new 2006 Communication. This, it would be assumed, will better position the Commission and Council with the member states, but also with voices heard in the European Parliament. As a result, China's "free ride" in Europe may be over.

A fourth factor that will shape Europe's policy towards, and relations with, China will be the pace and scope of internal reforms in China. The European Union has invested heavily-politically, financially, and rhetorically-in assisting China in a wide range of reforms. This has been the core of the EU's approach to China and what sets the EU apart from the United States and other nations in its dealings with China. The EU has viewed China primarily through the prism of a developing country and transitional nation-in the midst of multiple reforms aimed at marketizing the economy, globalizing the society, and pluralizing the polity. In these reforms, Europeans believe they have much to share with China-given their own histories as welfare states and, more recently, the transition from socialist systems in Central Europe. This orientation differs markedly from the American approach to the "rise of China" -as Americans tend to be exclusively concerned about the external manifestations of China's rise, while Europeans seem more concerned about its internal conditions.

Fifth, Europe now expects more from China in terms of contributing to global governance. This is made clear in the 2006 Communication. The EU welcomes China's recent contributions to UN peacekeeping operations (PKO), to UN reform, to non-proliferation, to resolving the North Korean nuclear crisis, and generally Beijing's new diplomatic activism. But, at the same time, the EU is deeply concerned about China's support for non-democratic states and its "value-free diplomacy" and "no strings attached" aid programs with such states, particularly in Africa and with Myanmar (Burma). Similarly, the EU is closely monitoring Beijing's worldwide quest for energy resources and raw materials. China may not yet be a global power, but it is increasingly a global actor. As such, Europe (and other nations) will be looking to Beijing to help address many of challenges and crises that afflict the international order.

The sixth variable affecting European policies towards China is the American factor and the new role that relations with China play in the transatlantic relationship. One positive side-effect of the arms embargo imbroglio has been that a greater appreciation of China-Europe relations began to take hold in the U.S. government and, concomitantly, a greater sensitivity and appreciation of U.S.-China relations and U.S. security commitments in East Asia developed in Brussels and other European capitals. As such, the "China factor" is now lodged more deeply in transatlantic relations. There now exists considerable consensus and broad agreement now between the U.S. and EU on a range of issues pertaining to China. It is apparent that the commonalities across the Atlantic concerning China far outweigh any differences.

Learning to Live with Complexity

The Sino-European relationship and "strategic partnership" remains an important one in world affairs and is, on the whole, a very positive one. Nonetheless, despite all the positives, it is also evident that the relationship has begun to emerge from its "honeymoon" phase. Thus far, none of these adjustments have been too wrenching, causing more minor tactical adaptations on both sides.

It is also evident that the changed-more sober-climate in relations since late last year comes primarily from the European side. In fact, when one reviews the rapid progress in relations over the 1995-2005 decade, it is evident that the EU had been the catalytic force in the relationship and played the role of ardent suitor. Brussels pursued Beijing more than vice versa. But, similarly, the lust seems to have begun to wear off more quickly on the European side. Going forward, the two sides will need to lower their expectations somewhat; clarify their rosy rhetoric; learn how to live with, narrow, or manage their differences; and develop the mechanisms to build a truly sustainable long-term marriage. Occasional frictions are to be expected, but the strong bonds and mutual interests will drive China and Europe closer and closer together over time.

Honoring the Dalai Lama

(International Herald Tribune editorial published Oct. 18)


It is a given that whenever the Dalai Lama is honored in the West, China's Communist leaders lash out in fury. It happened when the Tibetan spiritual leader was received by German Chancellor Angela Merkel last month, and it happened again this week when the Dalai Lama was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal and was received by President George W. Bush. It is our hope that free nations will continue to defy China's faux indignation, and that by honoring the Dalai Lama they will add to pressures on Beijing to open serious talks about granting Tibet the autonomy he seeks for his people.

Since he fled Tibet, when China crushed an uprising there in 1959, the Dalai Lama, who is venerated as the 14th reincarnation of the spiritual leader of Tibet, has remained a powerful symbol of Tibet's resistance to China's suppression of its unique culture. In Beijing-speak, the Dalai Lama is a "splittist," someone out to split off a chunk of China. Zhang Qingli, the Chinese party boss in Tibet, denounced the Dalai Lama before the Communist Party's current National Congress as "a person who basely splits his motherland and doesn't even love his motherland."

The fact is that the Dalai Lama does love his motherland - Tibet - and is not trying to split it away from China. In intermittent talks with the Chinese, his envoys have made clear that they do not seek sovereignty, but rather a measure of cultural and religious autonomy.

We would like to think that the 72-year-old spiritual leader's life-long dedication to nonviolence, kindness, and tolerance might rub off on some of the people he meets in Washington. "Through violence, you may solve one problem, but you sow the seeds for another," is one of his statements that politicians in Washington might meditate upon. Or this: "The world has become so small that no nation can solve its problems alone, in isolation from others."

There's no reason to believe that Beijing would really imperil its relations with the United States or Europe over the Dalai Lama. In any case, China's new-found wealth is no reason to abet its colonization of Tibet. On the contrary, that wealth should give China's leaders the self-confidence and maturity to respect and encourage the uniqueness of this ancient land and the wisdom of its spiritual ruler.

Freedom House Condemns U.S. Support of China on Taiwan UN Bid

Washington, D.C.
September 10, 2007

U.S. pressure on Taiwan to call off plans for a national referendum on applying for a seat at the United Nations is inconsistent with its commitment to the promotion of democracy and freedom, Freedom House said today.

The U.S. joined the People’s Republic of China in appealing to Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian not to hold a proposed referendum on whether Taiwan should continue to seek membership at the United Nations. Taiwan’s most recent application for a seat alongside China at the U.N. was rejected in July.

“The U.S., as one of Taiwan’s few strong allies, has made it clear that it wants to maintain the status quo and prevent a provocation of Chinese military action against Taiwan,” said Jennifer Windsor, executive director of Freedom House. “However, it has no business in joining with China to bully the Taiwanese people--who have demonstrated their commitment to democracy--away from peacefully expressing their desire to occupy a seat at the United Nations.”

“The message being sent by President Bush, first in accepting the invitation of Chinese President Hu Jintao to attend the Beijing Olympics, and now in joining China to suppress Taiwan’s democratic aspirations, is that the spread of democracy and freedom is not a priority when it offends a large powerful country,” she added.

Taiwan, which broke away from China in 1949, now boasts both strong democratic credentials and a vibrant economy. An electoral democracy, with a free press and strong civil liberties, Taiwan currently maintains the world’s 18th largest economy and is the 10th largest trading partner to the European Union. However, as a result of pressure by China, which considers Taiwan to be a part of its territory, only 24 nations currently recognize Taiwan as an independent country. The U.S. dropped its diplomatic recognition of Taiwan in 1979, when it established diplomatic relations with China, although it has remained a strong ally and has pledged to defend Taiwan from Chinese military intervention.

Taiwan has sent applications to join the United Nations for the past 15 years and has been denied each time. The proposed referendum on UN membership is slated for March 2008 to coincide with upcoming presidential elections.

Taiwan is rated Free in the 2007 edition of the organization’s annual survey, Freedom in the World, with a rating of 2 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being best) for political rights and a 1 for civil liberties.

Freedom House is an independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom around the world.

20 years of freedom at risk

On July 15, Taiwan will commemorate the 20 year anniversary of the lifting of martial law. For many Taiwanese, the 38-year period of martial law imposed by the Kuomintang regime represents a sad, painful era in Taiwanese history. Freedom of speech and expression was strictly curtailed, the media was tightly controlled by the government, while local culture was systemically oppressed. Political dissidents who spoke up for democratic reforms and increased autonomy were ruthlessly persecuted by the island's dictatorial government.

The times have changed drastically since the removal of martial law in 1987. Taiwan is arguably the most vibrant democracy in East Asia, a fact recognized by reputable organisations such as Freedom House and Human Rights Watch. The press in Taiwan enjoys an unprecedented amount of freedom, and Taiwanese citizens are able to participate directly in regular elections and referenda. Local culture and language has undergone a recent revival, after a long period of suppression.

Such drastic improvements were not easy to achieve. Democracy activists in the 1970's and 1980's risked their own livelihoods to speak out for political reforms and social justice. Some of these advocates and their families were harassed, while others were imprisoned indefinitely for sedition. In fact it was the illegal formation of the Democratic Progressive Party by political activists that was key in pressuring the government into lifting martial law a year later.

Enjoying the progress achieved on Taiwan in these last 20 years, it suffices to say that the Taiwanese cherish their hard-won freedoms and home-built democracy. They know first hand the sacrifices that were made to transform their country from a brutal dictatorship to a fledgling democracy. There is no desire for them to return to the dark days of martial law style dictatorship.

However, the democracy that the Taiwanese have built is under siege from China's military threats. The Chinese government refuses to recognize the success of Taiwan's democracy, nor the vast majority of Taiwanese that reject the idea of unification with China. After overcoming the harsh rule of the Japanese empire and Chinese nationalists in the 20th century, the Taiwanese people do not want to be ruled by the Chinese communist dictatorship that regularly commits human rights atrocities.

Unfortunately, nations which pay lip service to the values of human rights and democracy are too afraid to oppose China's expansionist rhetoric. In their bid to appease the growing power that China represents, they are quick to oppose any moves towards independence by Taiwan, but all too slow to condemn the fast increasing number of missiles that China points at Taiwan. While such nations support the independence of Kosovo and East Timor, they are unable to recognize the right of the Taiwanese people to determine the fate of their island nation.

The 20 year anniversary of the lifting of martial law will be celebrated on Taiwan as a triumph of democracy and freedom over oppression and tyranny. But such a victory stands incomplete so long as nations refuse to recognize the right of the Taiwanese people to safeguard their democracy from Chinese aggression.

Dr. Stan Lai, Spokesperson,

FAPA Europe