Weekly News Background from Taiwan's Government Information Office

News Backgrounder
June 30, 2010
I. Taiwan Set to Sign ECFA with Mainland China

A preparatory meeting for the fifth round of talks between Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and mainland China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) was held on June 24 in Taipei. Led by SEF Vice Chairman Kao Koong-lian and his ARATS counterpart Zheng Lizhong, the two sides finalized the ‘early harvest’ list under the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA), and agreed on the texts of the ECFA and of another pact on intellectual property rights protection. The two sides signed these agreements at the fifth round of SEF-ARATS talks on June 29 in the mainland city of Chongqing.

According to the SEF, a total of 539 goods and services proposed by Taiwan have been included in the early harvest list for immediate tariff or market concessions. These consist of petrochemical products (including petrochemical and plastic materials), textiles, transportation tools (automobile components), machinery (machine tools) and other products. Taiwan negotiators also strived for the inclusion of 18 agricultural and fishery products for zero-tariff treatment when exported to the mainland, benefiting many farmers in central and southern Taiwan. Meanwhile, Taiwan has agreed to include 267 items proposed by the mainland.
According to the Executive Yuan, the signing of the ECFA is a critical step toward upgrading national competitiveness that can open more business opportunities for local industries. It will not only enhance Taiwan’s international competitiveness and lure foreign investors, but will also put Taiwan in step with globalization and regional economic trends.

Studies by the Chung-hua Institution for Economic Research indicate that the signing of the ECFA will help Taiwan’s economy grow by 1.65 to 1.72 percentage points and create 257,000 to 263,000 job opportunities. Other benefits for Taiwan include earlier entry into the mainland market over competitors, attracting foreign investment, transformation of Taiwan’s economic structure and turning the island into a gateway and preferred business partner for the Chinese market.

The agreement will now pass to the Executive Yuan for approval and to the Legislative Yuan for review before it can be implemented. The Legislature will convene a special session in July to review the pact.

Many renowned economists hold the view that the ECFA will bring tremendous benefits for Taiwan’s economic development. Economics Nobel laureate Oliver Williamson pointed out that the ECFA would benefit both Taiwan and mainland China by promoting mutual prosperity and development. Nevertheless, he also emphasized the importance of self-protective measures. Business strategist Kenichi Ohmae described the cross-strait economic pact as “a carefully crafted vitamin for Taiwan.” Combined with a 17-percent business income tax rate and 370 direct cross-strait flights every week, Ohmae said that Taiwan could well become a business operations hub for Greater China.



II. Progress Made in Post-Morakot Reconstruction Efforts

On August 8, 2009, Typhoon Morakot brought torrential rain to southern Taiwan, causing deaths, inflicting severe losses on the tourism industry and damaging basic infrastructure in the mountainous regions of Kaohsiung County and other areas. At the time, President Ma Ying-jeou pledged that reconstruction efforts would be expeditious.

An all-weather remote emergency video communication system began operation in Namaxia Township on June 26. It is the first installation of its kind in Taiwan and will allow for more effective response to severe weather. The president stressed that the system can function under extreme conditions. Such a system, he said, is important for people living in remote areas, as they are more susceptible to the effects of climate change.

Meanwhile, on June 25, the premier announced that Provincial Highway No. 18 to Alishan reopened. This decision was in response to the needs of local residents and hopeful tourists. Along with the reopening of the Alishan Railway, this will help increase tourism to the area. Premier Wu pointed out that Alishan is a favorite destination for both domestic tourists and those from Japan and mainland China. Meanwhile, to attract more foreign tourists to Alishan, the Tourism Bureau will implement new marketing campaigns.

The reconstruction commission stated that the largest amount of rainfall dumped on Taiwan by Typhoon Morakot — nearly 3,000 millimeters — fell on the Alishan area. This was nearly a world record. The torrential rains inflicted terrible damage on the region’s environment and transportation system. As such, restoring regular operation of the Alishan Railway and tour buses is key to stimulating economic development there.

Source: Government Information Office, Republic of China (Taiwan)

Cross-Strait Relations in Space?

Some very interesting articles can be found simply by typing "Taiwan" into Google News (or your news aggregator of choice). A few days ago, we stumbled across this gem from "The Space Review: Essays and Commentary about the Final Frontier."

Writer Tyler Dinerman, in his article "China and Taiwan together on the space station," calls for both countries to be made participants in the International Space Station (ISS) partnership. China has already chalked up several successes independently sending humans into space (the China National Space Administration plans its first spacewalk later this year) and Dinerman suggests that China's Shenzhou space capsule could be adapted to dock with the station via either the U.S. or Russian mating systems. He further suggests that the last Space Shuttle mission might provide the perfect opportunity for some historic diplomacy in space:

"If China and Taiwan were to agree to fly to the ISS together they could take advantage of a series of opportunities, beginning with a possible participation by taikonauts from both nations in the possible final shuttle mission that may carry the AMS [Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer] to the station. Since the AMS contains parts made in both the PRC and on Taiwan, so this would fit nicely with the mission’s objectives."

Of course, such a rosy scenario would require all parties to overcome several sticking points to get there. Would the U.S. be comfortable with members from China's budding (and potentially rival) space program hitching a ride on the relatively advanced space shuttle, even though it is about to be decommissioned? Would a R.O.C. taikonaut flying with the Americans be too official of a Taiwan-U.S. exchange for China's taste?

Space missions have been used for diplomatic purposes before -- Apollo-Soyuz immediately comes to mind. Although this article is worth reading for no other reason than this new angle on the Taiwan-China-U.S. triangle relationship, it may be a while yet before a mission involving participants from all three countries takes place. But if it does, perhaps our common human curiosity and penchant for exploration will work its magic on one of the more strenuous relationships in international relations today.

PRC's Iron Media Curtain Extends beyond China's Borders

In one month the WHO World Health Assembly will convene in Geneva, Switzerland. The assembly convenes every year to vote on matters of business, appoint new officers and to consider applications for membership. Taiwan has applied annually since 1997 for representation in the WHO of one form or another. Each time Taiwan's application has been declined at the behest of China. As Taiwan possesses a major world economy and a world-class health care system that encompasses the care of its 23 million citizens, leaving Taiwan out of the WHO represents a major gap in the global health and disease prevention network.

As if this weren't bad enough, Taiwanese reporters are banned from even covering the World Health Assembly and many other WHO-related events. This is a clear violation of international media freedoms and the collective right of the people of Taiwan to know the proceedings of the assembled World Health Organization -- in particular, how and why they continue to be left out of it.

International journalists are in many ways a tight-knit professional community and several organizations are none to happy with what they see as China's behind-the-scenes manipulation of WHO media rights policy in order to further isolate Taiwan. Both the International Press Institute (IPI) and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) released statements on April 11 this year to voice their unhappiness with China's antics and the WHO ban on Taiwan journalists.

From IPI:

The International Press Institute (IPI), the global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists in over 120 countries, expresses concern regarding the refusal by the United Nations (UN) to grant press passes to journalists carrying Taiwanese passports or working for Taiwanese media outlets.

According to information before IPI, for the past four years, Taiwanese journalists have been barred from covering the annual World Health Assembly (WHA), the supreme decision-making body of the World Health Organization (WHO). The refusal to accredit Taiwanese journalists has been based on the fact that Taiwan is not a member of the UN.

IPI regards this decision as a serious violation of press freedom and the principle of universality of human rights. Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights grants everyone the right to "seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." In addition, Article 2 of the Declaration provides that all rights set forth therein apply to everyone, and that "no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty." Accordingly, it remains difficult to understand the justification for the UN’s discrimination against certain journalists based on the political status of the country to which they belong.

And from IFJ:

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) today issued a new call on the United Nations to lift its four-year ban on Taiwanese journalists from reporting from the World Health Assembly next month accusing the UN of undermining the role of journalism in global campaigns for public health.

“The United Nations is allowing itself to be bullied by China and in the process is chipping away at the values it was created to protect,” said Paco Audije, IFJ Deputy General Secretary.

The IFJ says Taiwanese journalists should be given accreditation like hundreds of other media people who will be covering the World Health Organisation (WHO) annual assembly, which will open in Geneva on May 19th to discuss “A safer future: Global Public Health Security in the 21st Century”.

But since 2004, the United Nations (UN) Department of Public Information has refused credentials to Taiwan journalists. The IFJ is supporting its affiliate the Association of Taiwan Journalists which is demanding that the ban is lifted.

“These journalists want to inform their public about a crucial debate taking place within the international community,” said Audije. “It is incomprehensible that bureaucratic obstacles should be used to deny journalists from Taiwan access to the forum that will consider the universal need for protection against risks of spreading disease.”

So there you have it: yet another rights violation sponsored by the officials in Beijing for four years running. This is the kind of media veil that is bad enough inside of China -- where liberal and heavy-handed journalistic restrictions make it nearly impossible for anyone outside to know exactly what is going on in places like Tibet or to know the full extent of human rights violations in China. When international organizations bow submissively to the same treatment however, the absurdity that follows is almost humorous. Almost.

Its time for the officers of the UN and WHO to wake up and appreciate the higher values that they are bound by the UN Charter to protect. Unless all international journalists are all equally permitted to cover UN and WHO proceedings, the promise these organizations were conceived to fulfill rings hollow.

Olympic Pledge for Peace Rings Hollow

Perhaps you've heard: this year's Olympic host hasn't been on very good behavoir when it comes to human rights. Here is a letter to the editor published in Defense News on March 17 from the director of the Press Division at TECRO on the subject:

As reported in your March 10 article by Wendell Minnick, “Is DoD Annual Report on China 20/20?,” China’s continued increases in military spending raise doubts regarding Beijing’s commitment to a peaceful resolution of tensions in the Taiwan Strait. In light of such doubts, Taiwan has been focusing heavily over the past few years on improving its defensive capabilities.

March 14 marks the 3rd anniversary of the ratification of China’s “Anti-Secession Law.” When one considers this document—which reserves for China the ‘right’ to use force against Taiwan—alongside the ever-increasing array of over 1,000 short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) deployed against Taiwan in China’s southeastern province, one wonders if Beijing’s pledge to behave in the interest of peace as this year’s Olympic host was some kind of sarcastic joke.

Taiwan’s leaders concern themselves with preserving the island’s vibrant and democratic society when they arrange for the purchase of defensive weapons, but an attack by China against Taiwan would also deal a major blow to the state of the global economy. Taiwan is a key link in the global IT supply chain; a major cross-Strait conflict could seriously cripple electronics trade worldwide.

Taiwan’s global importance also accounts for its need to be seated in vital international forums; namely, the United Nations and World Health Assembly. Until China can be convinced of this point, Taiwan and the United States will hopefully continue to successfully negotiate arms purchases and further build on the strong bilateral relationship necessary to keep the island well-protected.

Eddy Tsai
Director, Press Division
Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the U.S.
Washington

Things Can Happen Pretty Fast. . .

Anyone who's ever read this blog is, in all likelihood, already aware that the cross-Strait situation has been through a wave of news cycles and developments over the past few weeks. As news poured in, it was a monumental effort just to keep up and make sense of it all.

First there were reports released by the U.S. Departments of State and Defense on the P.R.C. Then the Olympic/human rights situation in China boiled over and took center stage in international news coverage as the Chinese government cracked down on political dissidents in Tibet and all over China. Those were followed by a rejuvenated call for boycotting the 2008 Beijing Olympics, a topic that any realist a month ago would have shrugged off as a hopeless fringe position.

Finally, this past weekend, the people of Taiwan elected a new president in their fourth direct presidential elections. President-elect Ma Ying-jeou of the KMT is set to be sworn into office on May 20.

Prior to all that, there had been a bit of a lull in cross-Strait relations developments. All parties involved had already voiced their positions and the news focused mainly on developments in Taiwan's domestic politics and the presidential race--crucial indeed, but not the central focus here at R.O.C. the Boat. Now, with Taiwan's next leader chosen and the many recent developments over the past week or so, we'll probably be playing a lot of blogger's catch-up as our head slowly stops spinning.

"The Real China and the Olympics"

The following open letter was written by human rights activists Teng Biao and Hu Jia. Mr. Jia was arrested by the Chinese government 3 months later for "incitement to subvert state power" and is still in prison today. This reproduction comes from the full translation text of last year's letter, released on the Human Rights Watch website this past Tuesday. To see the letter on HRW's website, click here.

September 10, 2007

The Real China and the Olympics

On July 13th 2001, when Beijing won the right to host the 2008 Olympic Games, the Chinese government promised the world it would improve China’s human rights record. In June 2004, Beijing announced its Olympic Games slogan, "One World, One Dream." From their inception in 1896, the modern Olympic Games have always had as their mission the promotion of human dignity and world peace. China and the world expected to see the Olympic Games bring political progress to the country. Is Beijing keeping its promises? Is China improving its human rights record?

When you come to the Olympic Games in Beijing, you will see skyscrapers, spacious streets, modern stadiums and enthusiastic people. You will see the truth, but not the whole truth, just as you see only the tip of an iceberg. You may not know that the flowers, smiles, harmony and prosperity are built on a base of grievances, tears, imprisonment, torture and blood.

We are going to tell you the truth about China. We believe that for anyone who wishes to avoid a disgraceful Olympics, knowing the truth is the first step. Fang Zheng, an excellent athlete who holds two national records for the discus throw at China's Special Sport Games, has been deprived of the opportunity to participate in the 2008 Paralympics because he has become a living testimony to the June 4, 1989 massacre. That morning, in Tiananmen Square, his legs were crushed by a tank while he was rescuing a fellow student. In April 2007, the Ministry of Public Security issued an internal document secretly strengthening a political investigation which resulted in forbidding Olympics participation by 43 types of people from 11 different categories, including dissidents, human rights defenders, media workers, and religious participants. The Chinese police never made the document known to either the Chinese public or the international community.

Huge investment in Olympic projects and a total lack of transparency have facilitated serious corruption and widespread bribery. Taxpayers are not allowed to supervise the use of investment amounting to more than US$40 billion. Liu Zhihua, formerly in charge of Olympic construction and former deputy mayor of Beijing, was arrested for massive embezzlement.

To clear space for Olympic-related construction, thousands of civilian houses have been destroyed without their former owners being properly compensated. Brothers Ye Guozhu and Ye Guoqiang were imprisoned for a legal appeal after their house was forcibly demolished. Ye Guozhu has been repeatedly handcuffed and shackled, tied to a bed and beaten with electric batons. During the countdown to the Olympic Games he will continue to suffer from torture in Chaobei Prison in Tianjin.

It has been reported that over 1.25 million people have been forced to move because of Olympic construction; it was estimated that the figure would reach 1.5 million by the end of 2007. No formal resettlement scheme is in place for the over 400,000 migrants who have had their dwelling places demolished. Twenty percent of the demolished households are expected to experience poverty or extreme poverty. In Qingdao, the Olympic sailing city, hundreds of households have been demolished and many human rights activists as well as "civilians" have been imprisoned. Similar stories come from other Olympic cities such as Shenyang, Shanghai and Qinhuangdao.

In order to establish the image of civilized cities, the government has intensified the ban against and detention and forced repatriation of petitioners, beggars and the homeless. Some of them have been kept in extended detention in so-called shelters or have even been sent directly to labor camps. Street vendors have suffered brutal confiscation of their goods by municipal agents. On July 20, 2005, Lin Hongying, a 56-year-old woman farmer and vegetable dealer, was beaten to death by city patrols in Jiangsu. On November 19, 2005, city patrols in Wuxi beat 54-year-old bicycle repairman Wu Shouqing to death. In January 2007, petitioner Duan Huimin was killed by Shanghai police. On July 1, 2007, Chen Xiaoming, a Shanghai petitioner and human rights activist, died of an untreated illness during a lengthy detention period. On August 5, 2007, right before the one-year Olympics countdown, 200 petitioners were arrested in Beijing.

China has consistently persecuted human rights activists, political dissidents and freelance writers and journalists. The blind activist Chen Guangcheng, recipient of the 2007 Ramon Magsaysay Award and named in 2006 by Time Magazine as one of the most influential 100 people shaping our world, is still serving his sentence of four years and three months for exposing the truth of forced abortion and sterilization. The government refused to give him the Braille books and the radio that his relatives and friends brought to Linyi prison in Shandong. Chen has been beaten while serving his sentence. On August 24, 2007, Chen's wife, Yuan Weijing, was kidnapped by police at the Beijing airport while waiting to fly to the Philippines to receive the Ramon Magsaysay Award on behalf of her husband. On August 13, 2007, activist Yang Chunlin was arrested in Heilongjiang and charged with subversion of state power "for initiating the petition ‘Human Rights before Olympics.’"

China still practices literary inquisition and holds the world record for detaining journalists and writers, as many as several hundred since 1989 according to incomplete statistics. As of this writing, 35 Chinese journalists and 51 writers are still in prison. Over 90 percent were arrested or tried after Beijing's successful bid for the Olympics in July 2001. For example, Shi Tao, a journalist and a poet, was sentenced to ten years in prison because of an e-mail sent to an overseas website. Dr. Xu Zerong, a scholar from Oxford University who researched the Korean War, was sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment for "illegally providing information abroad." Qingshuijun (Huang Jinqiu), a freelance writer, was sentenced to a 12-year term for his online publications. Some writers and dissidents are prohibited from going abroad; others from returning to China.

Every year in mainland China, countless websites are closed, blogs deleted, sensitive words filtered. Many websites hosted abroad are blocked. Overseas radio and television programs are interfered with or strictly prohibited. Although the Chinese government has promised media freedom for foreign journalists for 22 months, before, during, and after the Beijing Olympics, and ending on October 17, 2008, an FCCC (Foreign Correspondents Club in China) survey showed that 40 percent of foreign correspondents have experienced harassment, detention or an official warning during news gathering in Beijing and other areas. Some reporters have complained about repeated violent police interference at the time they were speaking with interviewees. Most seriously, Chinese interviewees usually become vulnerable as a result. In June 2006, Fu Xiancai was beaten and paralyzed after being interviewed by German media. In March 2007, Zheng Dajing was beaten and arrested after being interviewed by a British TV station.

Religious freedom is still under repression. In 2005, a Beijing pastor, Cai Zhuohua, was sentenced to three years for printing Bibles. Zhou Heng, a house church pastor in Xinjiang, was charged with running an "illegal operation" for receiving dozens of boxes of Bibles. From April to June 2007, China expelled over 100 suspected US, South Korean, Canadian, Australian, and other missionaries. Among them were humanitarian workers and language educators who had been teaching English in China for 15 years. During this so-called Typhoon 5 campaign, authorities took aim at missionary activities so as to prevent their recurrence during the Olympics.

On September 30, 2006, Chinese soldiers opened fire on 71 Tibetans who were escaping to Nepal. A 17-year-old nun died and a 20-year-old man was severely injured. Despite numerous international witnesses, the Chinese police insisted that the shooting was in self-defense. One year later, China tightened its control over the Tibetan Buddhism. A September 1, 2007, regulation requires all reincarnated lamas to be approved by Chinese authorities, a requirement that flagrantly interferes with the tradition of reincarnation of living Buddhas as practiced in Tibet for thousands of years. In addition, Chinese authorities still ban the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibet and a world-renowned pacifist, from returning to Tibet.

Since 1999, the government has banned many religious beliefs such as Falungong and the Three Servants. Their followers have experienced extremely cruel and planned persecutions. Many died from abuse, suffered torture, brainwashing, imprisonment and labor camp internment for persisting in their faith, possessing religious books, making DVDs and writing articles to expose the truth of the persecution.

China has the highest death penalty rate in the world. Execution statistics are treated as "state secrets." However, experts estimate that 8,000-10,000 people are sentenced to death in China every year, among them not only criminals and economic convicts, but totally innocent citizens, such as Nie Shubin, Teng Xingshan, Cao Haixin and Hugejiletu, whose innocence was proven only after they were already dead.

Another eight innocent farmers, Chen Guoqing, He Guoqiang, Yang Shiliang, Zhu Yanqiang, Huang Zhixiang, Fang Chunping, Cheng Fagen and Cheng Lihe, who confessed their "crimes" after being cruelly tortured by the police, have been sentenced to death and are currently held in prisons in Hebei [province] and in Jingdezhen [in Jiangxi province].

Torture is very common in China's detention centers, labor camps and prisons. Torture methods include electric shock, burning, use of electric needles, beating and hanging, sleep deprivation, forced chemical injection causing nerve damage, and piercing the fingers with needles. Every year, there are reported cases of Chinese citizens being disabled or killed by police torture.

Labor camps are still retained as a convenient Chinese system which allows the police to lock up citizens without trial for up to four years. The detention system is another practice that the police favors, freeing them to detain citizens for six months to two years. Dissidents and human rights activists are particularly vulnerable targets and are often sent to labor camps, detention centers or even mental hospitals by authorities who want to simplify legal procedures and mislead the media.

China has the world's largest secret police system, the Ministry of National Security (guo an) and the Internal Security Bureau (guo bao) of the Ministry of Public Security, which exercise power beyond the law. They can easily tap telephones, follow citizens, place them under house arrest, detain them and impose torture. On June 3, 2004, the Chinese secret police planted drugs on Chongqing dissident Xu Wanping and later sentenced him to 12 years’ imprisonment for "subversion of state power."

Chinese citizens have no right to elect state leaders, local government officials or representatives. In fact, there has never been free exercise of election rights in township-level elections. Wuhan resident Sun Bu'er, a member of the banned political party the Pan-Blue Alliance, was brutally beaten in September 2006 for participating as an independent candidate during an election of county-level people's congress representatives. Mr Sun disappeared on March 23, 2007.

China continues to cruelly discriminate against its rural population. According to the Chinese election law, a farmer's right to vote is worth one quarter of that of an urban resident. In June 2007, the Shanxi kiln scandal was exposed by the media. Thousands of 8-13 year-old trafficked children had been forced to labor in illegal kilns, almost all with local government connections. Many of the children were beaten, tortured and even buried alive.

The Chinese judiciary still illegally forbids any HIV/AIDS lawsuits against government officials responsible for the tragedy. AIDS sufferers and activists have been constantly harassed by the secret police.

The Chinese government has been selling arms and weapons to Darfur and other African regions to support ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The Chinese authorities have forcibly repatriated North Korean refugees, knowing that they would be sent to labor camps or executed once back home. This significantly contravenes China's accession to the "Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees" and the "Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees."

• Please be aware that the Olympic Games will be held in a country where there are no elections, no freedom of religion, no independent courts, no independent trade unions; where demonstrations and strikes are prohibited; where torture and discrimination are supported by a sophisticated system of secret police; where the government encourages the violation of human rights and dignity, and is not willing to undertake any of its international obligations.
• Please consider whether the Olympic Games should coexist with religious persecution labor camps, modern slavery, identity discrimination, secret police and crimes against humanity.

As the Beijing Olympics slogan says, we live in "one world" with "one dream." We hope that one day the Chinese people will be able to share universal human rights, democracy and peace with people from all around the world. However, we can see that the Chinese government obviously is not yet prepared to honor its promise. As a matter of fact, the preparations for the Olympics have provided the perfect excuse for the Chinese government to restrict civil liberties and suppress human rights!

We do not want China to be contained or isolated from the rest of the world. We believe that only by adhering to the principles of human rights and through open dialogue can the world community pressure the Chinese government to change. Ignoring these realities and tolerating barbaric atrocities in name of the Beijing Olympics will disgrace the Olympic Charter and shake the foundations of humanity. Human rights improvement requires time, but we should at least stop China's human rights situation from deteriorating. Having the Olympics hosted in a country where human dignity is trampled on, will not honor its people or the Olympic Games.

We sincerely hope that the Olympic Games will bring the values of peace, equality, freedom and justice to 1.3 billion Chinese citizens. We pray that the Olympics will be held in a free China. We must push for the 2008 Olympics to live up to the Olympic Charter and we must advocate for the realization of "one world" with "one human rights dream." We believe that only an Olympic Games true to the Olympic Charter can promote China's democratic progress, world peace and development.

We firmly hold to the belief that there can be no true Olympic Games without human rights and dignity. For China and for the Olympics, human rights must be upheld!



Teng Biao, a scholar and human rights lawyer in Beijing. Hu Jia, a human rights activist in Beijing.

Political Pand'-ering

Beijing attempts to spread its soft (and cuddly!) power to the island of Taiwan.

With the March presidential elections on Taiwan quickly approaching and a continued strong outlook for KMT candidate Ma Ying-jeou, China has relaunched an insidiously furry plan to win over the people of Taiwan with their most advanced PR weapon--the ultimate WMD of public diplomacy. . . that's right, pandas.

According to today's AP article, a pair of Chinese pandas were first offered to Taiwan in 2005 "to mark a landmark visit by the leader of Taiwan's Nationalist party." Beijing then acted shocked and appalled at Taiwan President Chen's refusal to admit the oversized raccoons for obvious political reasons, because, well, Taiwan obviously needs pandas—as do we all (please pause for a moment to note our thick tone of sarcasm).

Beijing, of course, didn't make the whole thing go over any easier with Taiwan's ruling party when, according to the AP, they subsequently named the lovable fuzzy-wuzzies: "'tuantuan' and 'yuanyuan' — words that together mean 'reunion' in Chinese."

Now that the KMT candidate is the pollster's favorite for the March election in Taiwan, Beijing has put Taipei on notice that the pandas are up for offer once again.

We see this as yet another example of Beijing's inability to refrain from tainting even the most trivial connection to Taiwan with nationalist overtones. It would have been much more subtle and effective to have simply offered the pandas to Taiwan with no strings attached. After all, its tough to demonize a country that lends you a pair of objectively cute panda bears and asks for nothing in return.

Taiwan's Titanic Tech Trade

We came across an article from last Friday on PC Magazine's website entitled, "China-Taiwan Showdown Involves Politics, PCs." Glenn Smith's article is an interesting look at the ways in which a serious turn for the worse in the relationship between Taiwan and China could pose a serious threat to the world's IT electronics market. At face value, Smith's thesis seems a bit obvious: Taiwan is the world's leading producer higher end electronic devices, and many of the components used to assemble these products are sourced from factories in China, so of course a serious confrontation across the Taiwan Strait would harm the industry. Yet the scope of the possible harm done can sometimes be easily overlooked.

According to Smith's article, "Taiwan is the world's number one volume supplier of motherboards, WLAN NIC cards, VoIP cards, VoIP routers, laptops [83%], DSL customer premises equipment, cable modems, IP phones, PDAs [73%], VoIP terminals, LCD monitors [70%], switches, WLAN access points, color tube monitors and large LCD panels." Not only does Taiwan lead in all of these categories, it commands over half the global market share's dollar value in each and every one of them. Taiwan's tech industry is truly a global juggernaut.

Although over the years an increasing share of this nominal output has been manufactured by Taiwanese-owned fabrication outfits in China, virtually all product design originates in Taiwan's venerable scientific industrial parks. Furthermore, TFT-LDC lens and semiconductor production still remains largely on Taiwan soil. From the article:

Tze-Chen Tu, general director of the Industrial Economics & Knowledge Center (IEK), at Taiwan's Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), said that every country wants to keep its first-tier industries at home, and that technology transfers are banned if thought harmful to economic or national security.

"We don't like to see them go but even when Taiwan companies shift manufacturing to China, they come back for design and for critical components," said Tu.

The net result? According to Smith, whereas the production and export of existing electronics to the United States and other tech-consuming countries might be maintained during a crisis, "if things fall apart and a Tom Clancy scenario unfolds in the Taiwan Strait you can forget about upgrading your PC or laptop for a while. The hundred miles of shallow seas separating Taiwan and China happen to be the most important yet most precarious link in the global ICT [Information and Communications Technology] supply chain."

All these are very good economic reasons for the United States and most other countries to take a vested interest in maintaining peace and trade communications across the Taiwan Strait. Yet, in highlighting Taiwan's central role in this global industry, we are also shining light on the real benefits that could be reaped by businesses and consumers in both Taiwan and the United States from a free trade agreement between the two countries.

The electronic 'triangle trade' that currently exists between the U.S., Taiwan and China is formed as major American firms such as IBM, Intel and Apple look to Taiwan firms to design critical components for new products which are then manufactured and assembled in China and shipped to consumer outlets in the U.S. Due in large part to this dynamic, the United States is Taiwan's largest source of foreign direct investment and 3rd largest export market, while Taiwan, an island of 23 million, is the United States' 9th largest trading partner and 8th largest export market. Lowering trade barriers on any leg of the ICT trade flow would lower artificially imposed production costs and therefore equal higher company profits and lower price tags for consumers.

As mentioned in earlier posts on this site, there are of course other economic areas in which Taiwan and the United States, as close allies and trading partners, have formed strong ties. U.S. exports to Taiwan in 2006 amounted to $23 billion and Taiwan is a leading consumer of American meat and produce as well as cars and other industrial products. One 2002 study by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) projected that a Taiwan-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (TUFTA) would double American exports to Taiwan in the agricultural and auto sectors while raising overall exports $3.4 billion or 16% (at the time) annually. In 2004 a study by the Institute for International Economics (IIE) raised the expectations for annual increases in exports to $6.6 billion. Clearly the potential for growth in American exports Taiwan is increasing in proportion to current trade volume and considerably outpacing the current level of growth.

As we have long been consistently advocating here at R.O.C. the Boat, a US-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement would bring tangible economic benefits two both the United States and Taiwan--two countries whose economies are enmeshed but to a large degree do not overlap. Furthermore, an FTA would grease the wheels of the Asia-Pacific tech trade and add to the stability of the region. Finally, according to the same 2004 IIE study mentioned above, TUFTA would create more economic gains for the U.S. than those of 10 other current or potential FTA partners, including Australia, Singapore, Chile and New Zealand. At a time when the U.S. economy seems to be hitting a rough spot at best and perhaps moving into recession at worst, pursuing a free trade agreement with Taiwan would certainly give several sectors of the American economy something sunny on the horizon to look forward to.

Chicago Tribune interview with President Chen

Yesterday in the Chicago Tribune there was an interview conducted by Dennis V. Hickey with the header, "Person of Interest: Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian." Mostly, the discussion centered on cross-Strait relations with China and the emptiness of Hu Jintao's recent overtures for peace negotiations. Among other things, there was this nice little zinger:

Q: Were you surprised by President Hu's call for peace?

A: No, it's just a strategy to deceive our people and foreign countries. . .If Hu Jintao abandons the one-China principle, I will be surprised. If China gives up its one-party dictatorship, renounces the use of force against Taiwan and removes the 988 [1,326?] missiles deployed opposite Taiwan, then I will be truly surprised.

Enjoy.

China: More guns, less butter.

Recently, two important numbers monitored here at R.O.C. the Boat underwent major revisions:

• The commonly accepted figure for the size of China's economy was reduced by 40 percent.

• The estimated number of ballistic missiles deployed against Taiwan by China has increased by 30 percent.

First, discrepancy in the size of China's economy seems to arise from the World Bank's use of way-outdated data sets (originally generated in the 1980s) to come up with the purchasing power parity (PPP) estimates that are crucial when estimating the size of an economy. PPP is a measurement obtained by weighing the relative values of currencies when those currencies are used to obtain identical goods in their domestic markets. Eduardo Porter, who wrote a great editorial for the New York Times on the 'downsizing' of China's economy almost a month ago, put it this way:

Take a 40 yuan serving of noodles at an eatery in Beijing. If the same dish cost $4 at a comparable restaurant in New York, the noodle P.P.P. would be 10 yuan to the dollar. Calculated using a large basket of goods and services, this ratio allows for a more consistent comparison of economies. . .

. . .It turns out that things in China are more expensive. It’s as though we discovered that the real price of the noodles in Beijing was 50 yuan, yielding a P.P.P. of 12.5 yuan to the dollar rather than 10. That means the Chinese are relatively poorer and China’s economy is smaller than everybody thought.

This is not a mere technicality. Suddenly the number of Chinese who live below the World Bank’s poverty line of a dollar a day jumped from about 100 million to 300 million, roughly the size of the United States population. And if you thought China’s energy consumption was dismally inefficient, consider that it still uses the same amount of energy to produce 40 percent less stuff.

As Porter puts it, with the release of the new World Bank figures, China's estimated economic output "lost a chunk roughly the size of Japan’s output." Maybe the World Bank will remember to update their purchasing power figures sooner next time?

The phenomenon of China's shrinking 'overnight' was also mentioned in today's Nelson Report, where the venerable Chris Nelson referred readers to a much more recent article in the LA Times entitled "The Great Fall of China". As China no longer seems like quite the economic juggernaut it has often been made out to be, perhaps the specter of 'antagonizing China' will no longer carry quite as much weight. To add a little more perspective, consider that the United States' economy is currently worth about $13 trillion. Economists previously thought the U.S. would be eclipsed by China's $11 trillion economy in 5 years. Not anymore: China's $11 trillion economy is now a $6 trillion economy.

Secondly, there's the small matter of the missiles China is piling up in its southeastern provinces, with a view toward threatening and forcibly coercing Taiwan. Throughout the second half of 2007, it was estimated that the number of short-range ballistic missiles the PLA had deployed against Taiwan was just shy of one thousand. However, during his final New Year's Day address, Taiwan's President Chen announced an updated study by Taiwan's Ministry of Defense boosts this number to 1,326. Just during President Chen's term alone, the number has increased by almost 700%. The jump in China's arsenal was reported in this article by the Epoch Times; an English-language transcription of President Chen's New Year's Day address can be read here.

These new figures will hopefully generate a more realistic public image of China's adopted role in the world economy and international relations. Combine China's increased poverty figures and drastically slashed economy size with continued missile proliferation and sales of weapons to governments like those of Myanmar and the Sudan, and one quickly realizes that China's role entails a lot more guns and a lot less butter than most of us previously thought.

What's bad for the Goose is bad for the Gander

There's a little old saying that goes, "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander," meaning that two things almost exactly alike will generally experience the same effects if the same thing happens to them. Conversely, if the proverbial goose is, say, Hong Kong, and the gander is Taiwan, then we could say that 'whats bad for the goose is bad for the gander.'

Indeed, China laid a big goose egg on Hong Kong when officials in Beijing pushed back by five years the planned date for direct elections in the special administrative region, saying the earliest possible year for such a vote is now 2017. There is no reason to believe that when the year 2013 rolls around, the vote will not be pushed back to 2022, and so on, and so forth, ad nauseam.

What does this mean for Taiwan? Well, what's bad for the goose. . .

After the unhappy decree was handed down from Beijing, Hong Kong's democratic leader Martin Lee came out to say that, "I do not see Hong Kong with genuine democracy in 10 years more or 20 years more. It is just a mirage," according to an AFP news story. At this point, it is indeed reasonable to expect that Hong Kong will not enjoy open democracy until, by dint of a miracle, all of China becomes democratic.

With the head of Hong Kong's democratic goose cleanly lopped off, for all to see and just in time for New Year's dinner (t-1:30 in Taipei ; t-14:30 in Washington), the brain in the head of Taiwan's democratic gander is wondering why anyone would expect Taiwan to willingly put its neck to the chopping block (hint: chopping block = unification). From the same AFP story:

A senior Taiwanese official said Beijing's move underlined why the island could not accept reunification [sic] with mainland China.

Tung Chen-yuan, a deputy chief of Taiwan's China policy-making body, known as the Mainland Affairs Council, said the decision sent a clear signal "that the Chinese Communist Party does not allow genuine democracy.

Even the Foreign Ministry of Great Britain—which, as the port city's former colonial ruler, usually remains mute on all things Hong Kong—made a statement describing Beijing's latest anti-democratic antics "a disappointment."

Having flogged the 'goose and gander' analogy sufficiently for the entire year of 2007, we would simply like to wish all who read this a very happy New Year. See you in 2008!

More Food for Thought

Exerpt from 12/20 article, "Blind in Beijing" by Dan Blumenthal
published in The American, an AEI publication

If economic growth and “peace and development” are China’s main goals—as the Communist Party states, and as many Chinese surely desire—then why is China engaged in the most significant military buildup in the world? The PRC enjoys a secure external environment: East Asia is more stable today than it has been in decades. Chinese protestations that the military buildup is “all about Taiwan” are less than reassuring. For one thing, the very idea that China would prepare for war with a de facto sovereign nation over which it has had no official control since the late 1800s is totally inconsistent with modern notions of sovereignty. There are many English-speaking countries that are no longer part of the British Empire; nor are all German-speaking countries part of Germany. Both England and Germany are doing just fine without their former colonies. And should China’s intentions change as its strength increases, the same military capabilities that could be used against Taiwan could also be deployed against American forces in a range of scenarios.

UN for Taiwan 101

Experts assess national referendum at Heritage

We were at the Heritage Foundation Tuesday, where Taiwan's Representative to the United States, Dr. Jaushieh Joseph Wu, addressed policy experts, media and conference attendees during an event entitled, "Taiwan's UN Bid: Domestic Democracy or International Crisis?"

Representative Wu’s address covered the legal and practical arguments in support of Taiwan’s bid to become a UN member. He asserted that both Taiwan and the international community have a substantial interest in Taiwan’s full participation in the UN, reminding the audience of Taiwan’s status as the world’s eighteenth largest economy and its role as a regional “beacon of freedom,” due to its national journey from authoritarian rule under the old Chiang regime to today’s “active, vibrant democracy.” Wu noted that “despite its legal and substantive standing, Taiwan has been stifled by the People’s Republic of China in its attempts to join the United Nations and other international organizations.”

The ensuing panel discussions came together as a tour-de-force of the many factors enmeshed in the issue of Taiwan's proposed UN referendum. Thankfully, the dialogue seemed to be relatively balanced, although each speaker seemed more intent on listing what they saw as the key issues and possible consequences surrounding the controversy rather than explicitly weighing in on whether or not Taiwan should go ahead with the planned votes in March. One thing the panelists did agree on, is that at this point in time, the referendum seems likely to take place.

China expert Randy Shriver, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, listed the many facets of the political climate in Taiwan which have lead to the general need to hold a referendum, including a “genuine desire on the part of the people of Taiwan to be a part of the United Nations,” as well as a “desire to deepen and strengthen Taiwan’s democracy” and to “provide evidence to the world of differentiation between the PRC and Taiwan.” Mr. Shriver also listed “continuing efforts to define and express [Taiwan’s] national identity” and “political motivations” as contributing factors to Taiwan’s referendum drive.

David Brown, a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, struck a more precautionary tone. He stated that the planned referendum was part of a “vicious circle between Taiwan and the mainland,” in which military buildup and increased pressure from the mainland causes Taiwan to become increasingly assertive on behalf of its separate national entity, in response to which the government in Beijing becomes increasingly more belligerent. Unfortunately, Brown seemed to believe that the onus is on Taiwan to cease its efforts to gain international representation rather than on Beijing to halt and reduce its military buildup opposite Taiwan on China's southeastern coast.

Overall, the conference may be best described as a 'hung jury,' which in our view isn't necessarily a bad thing. Although it may be difficult separate the various contributing factors that make international and domestic politics on Taiwan such a perplexing milieu, it seemed clear to most or all present at Tuesday's event that the referenda are not solely the products of crass political maneuvering by political parties on Taiwan. If that were the case, the DPP and KMT would have never gained enough signatures to go ahead with the vote.

Note: You can see video of Tuesday's event on Heritage's website by clicking here.

Crashing the Corruption Party

Chinese officials launched a website (yfj.mos.gov.cn) this week where concerned citizens can report incidences of corruption in an effort to clean up China's notoriously crooked economic and political structure. The result? Multiple website crashes, as the URL was flooded with angry reports of ill-doing as well as critiques of the website's appearance and messages of encouragement for this latest effort to fight corruption.



Some posters departed from reports of specific incidents to comment on larger problems, such as the posh lifestyles led by officials and their families. As the Washington Post reported, one poster, "condemned what he described as the soft life led by officials' offspring. With no visible source of income, he said, the young princelings drive new cars, live in new houses and spend money like there is no tomorrow. 'This is not normal,' he added. 'You should look into it.'"



We hope that, once the government has fixed the website so that it is nice and stable, some of the reports will actually be read and addressed (in the case of princelings, not very likely). Otherwise, the site represents nothing more than a digital Potemkin village.

Quick Jot: New PINR report on U.S.-PRC relations

Power and Interest News Report (PINR) released a rather detailed and insightful brief on Sino-U.S. relations and how they have been effected by the recent Kitty Hawk spat. Overall, the sense seems to be that, wheras in the short term there obviously seems to be no cataclysmic rupture in the U.S.-China relationship or the strategic landscape of the West Pacific Rim, several highly nuanced shifts in international power politics can be gleaned from this episode. Many of these shifts have an effect on Taiwan, and these relevancies are enumerated in the report.

Many thanks to the China Digital Times news update service for drawing our attention to this valuable report.

A gaffe-and-a-half: Kitty Hawk & minesweeper follow-up

The government of China and/or People's Liberation Army (somtimes its tough to figure out who's calling the shots) really shot themselves in the foot with this latest blunder concerning the refusal of American naval vessels seeking entry into Hong Kong harbor. Not only does this latest blunder add to what is becoming a rather long list of bones the American public has to pick with China these days, its effect is exacerbated by the pride the United States has for its blue-water navy, not to mention the belief that America's heavily maritime-influenced culture holds in an honor code on the high seas.

For an excellent example of how the PRC government is hurting China's image with irrational actions arising from equally irrational grievances—over the U.S. honoring the Dalai Lama, or selling Patriot missiles defense upgrades to its ally, Taiwan, etc.—read this editorial by Lorna Hahn, executive director of the Association on Third World Affairs in today's Washington Times:

China-Taiwan tensions

In violation of the long-established principle that all nations should assist ships at sea that are in distress, China recently refused to allow two American minesweepers threatened by a storm to enter Hong Kong harbor for safety and fuel ("China's action troubles admiral," Page 1, Wednesday). Shortly thereafter, it withdrew permission for an American aircraft carrier, carrying sailors planning to spend Thanksgiving with relatives, to enter Hong Kong.

The reason, according to U.S. officials, was the announcement on Nov. 9 that Washington would sell Taiwan $939 million worth of upgraded Patriot missile defense systems in order to "help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance and economic progress in the region."

If China would begin to dismantle its 900-some missiles aimed at Taiwan rather than continually increase their number, Taiwan would not need to increase its defenses against them. Furthermore, if Beijing's leaders would meet with Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian, as he has suggested often, tensions in the Taiwan Strait, which often affect other countries, could be replaced by cooperation.

LORNA HAHN
Executive director
Association on Third World
Affairs
Washington

The open sea is perhaps the last place on earth that operates under what, for lack of a better phrase, can be referred to as a 'frontier-style' culture. Just like the fabled unwritten Code of the West in American frontier history, there are certain things on the high seas that—no matter who you are—you just don't do. One of those unwritten taboos is to bar entry into a harbor to any vessel threatened by stormy seas. As long as there's room in the harbor, there's room for more ships, especially when the seas are a-rockin'.

So really, does China's government exhibit the sense of maturity, much less the sense of humanity, to be allowed to recklessly manipulate the international community in the way that it does? Does it have any inherent right to lay claim to a democratic and self-sustaining island when it can't even responsibly attend to its own affairs? We'll leave you with that thought in this wrap-up of the recent PRC-USN SNAFU.

U.S.-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement Roundtable

Photo of the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, which became the centerpiece

of a Sino-U.S. diplomatic tussle when it was not allowed to carry out a planned

visit to the port of Hong Kong this past Thursday and was forced to return to its

home port in Japan. Many family members of the sailors had traveled to

Hong Kong, looking forward to celebrating Thanksgiving with the crew.

Yesterday at the Sigur Center, the Asian Studies center within the international affairs school at the George Washington University, a panel discussion was held that featured guests from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO, Taiwan's officially 'unofficial' embassy in Washington) as well as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, two eminent Washington policy think-tanks.

The issue of the day was whether the United States and Taiwan should enter into serious negotiations and eventually finalize and enact a free trade agreement. The event began with a rather informative presentation by the director of TECRO's economic division, Mr. Francis Liang, who highlighted the many reasons why a Taiwan-U.S. FTA would be beneficial to the economies and populations of both countries involved. Thanks to the provision of extra copies of this presentation in paper form for audience members at the event, we are able to forward some of the more interesting facts and figures to you:

• Taiwan has experienced an average annual growth in GDP of 7.8 % over the past half century, and currently engages in foreign trade to the tune of $437 billion U.S. dollars and is the second largest holder of Foreign Exchange Reserves in the world ($266 billion).


• Taiwan produces 72% of the world's laptops, 79% of PDAs and 68% of LCD monitors. In the cover article of a May 2005 issue of Business Week, Bruce Einhorn referred to Taiwan as "the hidden center of the global economy."
  
• In 2006, Taiwan was the United States' 9th largest trading partner, 11th largest export market, and the largest importer per capita of U.S. agricultural products. In the same year, the United States served as Taiwan's 3rd largest trading partner, second largest export market, and Taiwan's largest source of foreign direct investment. Taiwan-U.S. bilateral trade was worth $62 billion dollars last year.

In addition to hard facts and figures, Mr. Liang helped explain the current trade situation in the Pacific Rim and how this adds to the need for an FTA. Currently, major Pacific Rim players such as Japan, China, Korea, Singapore, and Australia are vigorously signing and seeking new free trade agreements in the region. If the United States doesn't work to improve its trade relations and hammer out agreements with its top East Asia/Pacific allies, it may get edged out of the trade game in the Pacific.

This is just a sampling of what Mr. Liang had to say. On the other hand, Philip Levy, a resident scholar at AEI, was rather hesitant about the prospects for TUFTA. Mr. Levy's major hang-up when it comes to this topic is the "China factor." To put it simply, he, like many other academics, government officials, and 'China hands' in the United States, is simply fraught with worry at the prospect of 'antagonizing' the government of China in any way whatsoever.

Levy argues that whatever benefit Taiwan gains by formalizing an FTA with the United States will be cancelled out by the drop in foreign investment that would presumably follow if the PRC government stepped up its threats, military activity, and the familiar sabre-rattling routine in general in response. According to his hypothesis, Taiwan would then be unable to reap the benefits of TUFTA and would only have caused greater threat to its very existence.

What we believe is overlooked in Levy's line of reasoning, is why the very idea of a Taiwan-U.S. Free Trade Agreement raises the hackles of any PRC government official or general in the PLA. By engaging in deeper trade relations with Taiwan, the United States would be affirming in a practical way its values-based alliance with Taiwan's government. Rather than increasing the likelihood of Chinese acts of aggression against Taiwan, this step would make it more difficult for China to recklessly threaten Taiwan without thereby antagonizing the United States!

Humanists and 'starry-eyed idealists' in the U.S. are already more likely to favor Taipei over Beijing due to our countries' common interests in democracy, human rights, civil freedom, etc. More cynical observers of American foreign policy on the other hand—who were probably thinking yadi-yadi-yada by the time they got to the end of the last sentence—would also be more unlikely to tolerate PRC aggression against Taiwan, as American economic interests would become increasingly tied to Taiwan's national interests.

Besides, as Mr. Tkacik touched upon in his usual fire-and-brimstone manner, what with all the recent news concerning ongoing Chinese involvement in human rights violations, faulty Chinese commercial imports and the snubbing of the United States Navy with the recent U.S.S. Kitty Hawk Thanksgiving Day incident (just to name a few), maybe its high time that the United States did engage in a little diplomatic antagonizing towards the PRC government.

Summarily, at the conclusion of a free trade agreement between Taiwan and the United States, American officials would perhaps reasonably be a bit on edge for fear of economic and political backlash from Beijing. More important however is that, from that point onward, every time officials in Beijing contemplated the forceful unification of Taiwan with China, they would worry more than ever about the prospects of antagonizing the country that represents China's largest export market and the world's sole remaining superpower.

It seems to us that, in terms of American foreign policy vis-a-vis Taiwan and the People's Republic of China, improving American trade relations with Taiwan using the vehicle of a Free Trade Agreement is one of the best moves that can be made within the even the most conservative definition of the status quo.

Some Helpful Articles:

Yesterday we saw two helpful and refreshingly fair articles on the internet.

The first is an editorial by the Houston Chronicle, entitled, "Their dilemma, and ours," in which the Chronicle underscorses the dark irony we have to live with when democratic Taiwan continues to get the international 'cold shoulder', while oppressive Beijing happily frolicks towards the 2008 Summer Olympics without the slightest reform to China's cruel and stifling political system. Some highlights:

Neither independent nor subjugated, commanding one of the world's largest economies but officially recognized by few nations, the island democracy of Taiwan endures a tenuous existence in a world that requires global access. If that weren't bad enough, it is menaced by a hostile neighbor that claims ownership.

and:

Taiwan's dilemma offers a similar set of difficulties for the United States. Taiwan's de facto U.S. ambassador, Joseph Wu, outlined for members of the Houston World Affairs Council the several bitter ironies of the situation. The United States must maintain workable relations with China and can't recognize Taiwan, even though:

• China menaces Taiwan with missiles and threats, while Taiwan poses a danger to no one.
• Taiwan is a major U.S. trading partner, importing many tons of agricultural products, including Texas beef, and exporting electronic equipment that meets high standards of quality and safety. China sends us tainted food and toxic toys.
• Taiwan has curbed its air and water pollution, but China's regime fears environmental activists more than environmental degradation.

Chinese leader Hu Jintao recently called for talks with Taipei officials to maintain peace in the region. China and Taiwan should "resume talks on an equal footing as soon as possible," Hu said before his recent summit with President Bush in Washington.

and:

As for the United States, the least it can do is grant Taiwan the same generous trading terms it recently gave South Korea, one of Taiwan's chief competitors. Washington should also champion Taiwan's desire to work with vital international institutions such as the United Nations' World Health Organization. To deny Taiwan access is to punish a peaceful, democratic ally while rewarding an oppressive competitor.

We couldn't have said it better ourselves. Pay particular attention to the call for increased trade (TUFTA?) and UN/WHO membership for Taiwan in the pentultimate sentence. These actions are the first solid step towards righting the wrongs collectively forced upon Taiwan over the many years that it has been a legitimate democracy.

The second article was by Simon Tisdall of the U.K. rag The Guardian. Entitled, "Taiwan squeezed as US and China negotiate," it highlights an unsettlying dynamic that was recently discussed during a panel discussion at the Heritage Foundation: the more the United States suffers from diplomatic tunnel vision dealing with the Middle East, the more it is forced to rely on major regional players like China to help maintain at least a semblance of order elsewhere in the world. In doing so however, the United States may end up bargaining away foreign affairs objectives it would never have conceded otherwise. One can easily see how this might apply to Taiwan:

According to Taiwan's president, Chen Shui-ban, China now has 988 missiles aimed at Taiwanese targets and is continually adding to its arsenal. Chen, who strongly opposes unification and the communists' "one China" mantra, recently described Beijing as a threat to regional peace and said it was preparing to take the island by force by 2015. Last month China said it had deployed a high-performance radar system designed to complement its surface-to-air missiles and jet fighter interceptors.

Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, questioned the build-up during a visit to Beijing last week. The two sides agreed to create a military hotline to help defuse crises. But Gates' overriding stated priority was securing China's backing for steps to curb Iran's nuclear activities. On Taiwan, he merely reiterated Washington's formulaic support for maintaining the status quo.

. . .Taiwanese officials say China has become adept at manipulating the Bush administration. "They are under pressure from China. China is very clever. If they want to do something on Taiwan, they call the White House and tell the Americans that Taiwan is rocking the boat. Then the US government puts pressure on us," a senior official said. "Of course we are afraid about the growing cooperation between the US and China. It's a problem for us. It is definitely squeezing Taiwan."

Lost in the Mail: PRC fails to deliver vital health alerts to Taiwan

What do the government of China and the classic computer game "Oregon Trail" have in common?

They both will give you the occasional case of dysentery:

The government of China recently delayed relaying crucial information provided to it by the World Health Organization (WHO) to Taiwan for 10 days, an unnecessary decision that risked exposing thousands of Taiwanese to the deadly bacterial disease dysentery.

The news came from within the WHO that Thailand had recently exported several shipments of baby corn that were possibly contaminated with the pathogenic bacteria Shigella dysenteriae, which, when ingested, induces the deadliest form of the disease dysentery. Taiwan is barred from membership in the WHO as it is an organization under the umbrella of the United Nations. The government of the People's Republic of China, due to its consistently irrational bouts of paranoia regarding Taiwan's international status, has repeatedly pressured the WHO to sign memoranda of understanding (MOUs), some of which are classified, which more or less assure Beijing that the World Health Organization will continue to toe the China line.

Meanwhile, the 23 million citizens of Taiwan have been excluded from direct representation in the organization, an alarming fact that represents a gaping hole in the global health, disease control and response network the WHO was formed to maintain. Of course, the PRC claims that Taiwan is covered by the WHO, as the island is supposedly a province of China -- a dilusionary assertion that the international community is forced to accept.

The consequence of this policy of appeasement towards Beijing is that the global health network remains incomplete, at great risk not only to the 23 million people on Taiwan but indeed to people everywhere. Imagine what happens when the government of China decides to use the same stalling tactics if, say, they are informed that an airborne pathogen has possibly traveled to Taiwan. As a large shipping and commercial transportation hub, such a disease could easily leapfrog all over the planet using Taiwan as a departure point before Beijing decides it has the time of day to let the authorities on Taiwan know about it. Such a global risk taken for the sake of Beijing's hubris is unacceptable.

These recent developments provide a case in point. Beijing claims that Taiwan is a territory that falls under its jurisdiction, yet when the international community agrees to go along with this bogus idea, China's government consistently shirks all responsibilities regarding Taiwan. Not only does it consistently wave military threats under Taiwan's nose and take every measure to isolate Taiwan's people politically and economically, the PRC government also apparently finds it acceptable to wait ten whole days to inform the people of Taiwan that, sorry:

Reporting We Like

Kudos to the AP for running a pretty fair and balanced article on cross-Strait relations. We read it today on the International Herald-Tribune's website. It concerns Taipei's response to a PRC offer for negotiations on a peace accord. The text follows:

TAIPEI, Taiwan: Taiwan on Monday rejected a call by Chinese President Hu Jintao for a formal peace accord between the two rivals, saying it lacked any significance.

Government spokesman Shieh Jhy-wey's comments came several hours after Hu told a major Communist Party meeting that Beijing favored a peaceful, negotiated settlement to the 58-year-old conflict, provided Taiwan accepts that it is a part of China.

Taiwan and China split amid civil war in 1949. The "one-China principle" has formed the basis of Beijing's policy toward the self-ruled island ever since.

In Taiwan's first official reaction to Hu's comments, Shieh said that the Chinese leader's invitation "was devoid of any significance whatsoever."

"We will not discuss peace, unification, or any other issues with a regime that has suppressed the Tibetans, killed its own people and supported the military junta of Myanmar," he said.

Taiwan frequently castigates Beijing for its human rights policies, including its support for military or dictatorial governments abroad.

Emphasizing the differences between the two, Shieh said that Taiwan is founded on human rights and democracy, while China's ruling Communist Party does not represent the will of its own people.

"China is threatening Taiwan with war," he added, referring to Beijing's promises to attack the island of 23 million people if it makes it de facto independence permanent.

Though Taiwan's government once vowed to reunite with the mainland, over the past several years it has emphasized its separate identity, drawing threats from Beijing to use the military option.

Hu warned in his speech that Taiwan's independence forces were "stepping up their secessionist activities," jeopardizing chances for peace between the two sides. He said people in China and Taiwan should work to "oppose and constrain such activities" and offered to work with any political parties in Taiwan as long as they agreed that Taiwan was part of China.

Beijing is particularly worried that with Taiwan's next presidential election due in March and the Beijing Olympics in August, Taiwanese leaders might be tempted to test the limits of China's tolerance. Last month, Taiwan's ruling Democratic Progressive Party passed a resolution calling for a referendum on Taiwan's sovereignty.

President Chen Shui-bian has also pushed for Taiwan's entry into the United Nations under its own name, rather than its formal title of the Republic of China, which connotes fealty to the one China policy.

This reporter took the time to explain Taiwan's valid grievances concerning the lack of human rights and democracy in China under the PRC regime, rather than painting an all-too-common loose sketch of the situation that leaves Taiwan's government looking like a stubborn and naïve agitator. One can hardly imagine criticizing Taiwan for being an island that "frequently castigates Beijing for its human rights policies, including its support for military or dictatorial governments abroad."

The only thing we could see that might be worth knit-picking over is this sentence: "Taiwan and China split amid civil war in 1949." Perhaps the unfamiliar reader would interpret this to mean that the civil war was simply a matter of Taiwan seceeding from China or, even worse, the PRC the same way states in the American South attempted to seceed from the Union during the American Civil War. Perhaps a better sentence would be: "China and Taiwan split at the end of civil war on the mainland in 1949," or, if the writer can afford the extra real estate: "In 1949 at the end of the China's civil war, the Nationalists fled to Taiwan, maintaining there a seperate government from the PRC in Beijing."

These two suggestions seem to better convey the historical reality--although we can hardly claim to be seasoned hands concerning Taiwan-PRC relations If any one of our readers can think of a better line for the press, please feel free to post it in the comments section!