Let us not forget ...

China will settle for nothing less than unification under the PRC banner.

China's foreign minister Thursday warned the U.S. on Taiwan, saying that Beijing will never compromise despite easing cross-strait tensions.

Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi (楊潔箎) issued his warning in a speech in Washington, where he nonetheless called for greater cooperation with President Barack Obama's administration despite recent rows.

"I want to stress that no matter how the situation across the Taiwan Strait may evolve, we will never waiver in our commitment to the one China principle and will never compromise our opposition to 'Taiwan independence,' 'two Chinas' or 'one China, one Taiwan,'" he said.

ECFA and political negotiations

Taiwan's pan-blue bastion of English journalism, the China Post, editorialized thus on the 10th of March:

President Ma Ying-jeou has upheld his campaign pledge of “no unification, no independence and no war” and ruled out any prospect of peace talks with China, saying relations are too tenuous to consider discussing political or military issues.

Taiwan's protector the U.S., its own people and even its rival in Beijing endorsed Ma's “three-no” pledge, which helped him to win the presidency last March, defeating the ruling DPP's candidates of pro-independence platforms. The island's people, allies and even enemy all supported Ma's policy for status quo: a territory of the Republic of China.

All right. You will note a few things about this: first, the claim that Ma has "ruled out" the prospect of peace talks. This theme continues later in the editorial. And it is a very useful claim but there are some problems with it. Namely, it can't be true, and Ma hasn't said so much as he has stalled the topic of political negotiations. Why do I say that?

First, the ECFA economic deal is nearing completion, though the details have been withheld from the public, and there is good reason to believe it will be presented soon indeed. The legislature may or may not be given the right to review the legislation (Ma is trying to avoid that), but there would certainly not be time for a bottom-up referendum on the issue. Once that framework is signed, you can expect the Chinese banks to come here first and other direct Chinese investment to follow up. Since Taiwan already has so much invested in China, what will happen is that full economic integration will happen faster than anybody realizes, with only a few smaller issues like labor and agricultural imports remaining unresolved (those can always be smuggled anyway).

And while I can't find the link right now for the life of me, there was an article last week or so in a Western paper in which a Chinese professor is quoted as saying political and military talks will have to come soon, by summer at latest, because all of the economic and cultural issues will be done with by then. And that is certainly true. Contacts will probably start with some retired military officials.

The military question and political question cannot be separated, but you can expect some military resolutions first; I imagine that besides the missile build up freeze, you will have a tactical freeze on Taiwan's weapons purchases and the establishment of some contact lines and, when everything is going very well, perhaps a joint exercise or two -- aimed at the Senkaku islands/Diaoyutai? -- though that's certainly the most difficult thing to negotiate, even ignoring that it would make Japan and the US very squeamish indeed.

The question is, as I've blogged on before, when it comes to political negotiations, just what can be realistically expected? What sort of "intermediate settlement," as Hu hinted at in his speech marking the 30th anniversary of Chinese calls for reconciliation and peaceful unification, can truly be reached that would satisfy both sides? I still find it impossible to wrap my head around any serious progress on this front, and both sides have been tactically very quiet on this issue.

Anti-secession law

As the fourth anniversary of the of China's anti-secession law approaches, and as speculation mounts about what Ma will (or will not) say on that date, I opted to reread some of the documents from that time.

First, take a look at some of the clauses in the official English version of the law:

Article 2 There is only one China in the world. Both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China. China's sovereignty and territorial integrity brook no division. Safeguarding China's sovereignty and territorial integrity is the common obligation of all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included.

Article 3 The Taiwan question is one that is left over from China's civil war of the late 1940s....

Article 4 Accomplishing the great task of reunifying the motherland is the sacred duty of all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included.

The DPP government's response at that time, translated by me:

The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent country, and the country's sovereignty belongs to the 23 million people of Taiwan. Any change in Taiwan's future [status] can only be decided by the 23 million people of Taiwan. This is the current social consensus on national sovereignty in Taiwanese
society, and is the common conviction of both the ruling and opposition parties. Recent surveys demonstrate that over 90% of Taiwanese people uphold this principle. Although China has again stated that it will "place its hope in the Taiwanese people," the Anti-secession law in fact completely goes against Taiwanese public opinion. A march survey demonstrates that 93.4% of people do not support the Chinese passing this law as an excuse to use force against Taiwan, and the Legislative Yuan passed a bi-partisan resolution on March 4thcalling on the Beijing authorities to reconsider its actions.

Now I've been tending to dismiss recent DPP claims that Ma is selling out Taiwan's sovereignty, mostly because I believe the DPP are neglecting real problems in favor of rants about what seems like an unlikely hypothetical end result -- that Ma wants to sell out an island that he can already run. I've felt this argument will leave behind middle voters and is probably not true -- while I trust Ma wants Taiwan to unify with China eventually, I also trust he doesn't see it happening in his own lifetime.

But when I reread the DPP statement from that time, it strikes me that the DPP's argument would be infinitely stronger if they nailed Ma on the second half of the statement I highlighted: that sovereignty belongs to Taiwan's 23 million people. Ma agrees the ROC is a sovereign, independent country, but has never stated who that sovereignty belongs to, and tactically denies it belongs to Taiwanese people with his "one China, two interpretations" policy. And the DPP needs to hammer that home, since Ma will be forced to respond with silence, instead of shrilly yelling about how Ma is selling us out.

On second thought...

As Michael Turton notes, No PRC Constitution in exams

Are you kidding me?

Note: Corrections in comments and in post above.

Be sure to catch Taiwan Echo's post: Ma Govt Requires Public Servants to Pass Exam on PRC Constitution.

As shocking as it is true, this news also demonstrates the government must believe the PRC Constitution counts for something. But of course the Communist Party respects that document even less than Bush did the US'.

While not in and of itself a political concession, this kind of useless and ideological policy shift points the way to the future.

Also be sure to check out this Taipei Times article: ‘Big Brother’ bill stirs up DPP anger

><

This Holo Taiwanese-related piece demonstrating increasingly pathetic behavior by my least favorite female KMT legislator (I have four least favorite legislators) is probably of no interest to most readers, but I find it infuriating that a legislator who knows jack shit about the language has taken itself upon her to "teach" Holo to the non-Holo speaking Premier.

Some comments from the TGB:

國民黨的刪除台語認證專家, 用咱設計"Guan-tau kong Tai-gi"的貼紙作教材, theh khi ka Lau
tiau-hian Tai-gi.....有夠天才.

M tsai-iann kian-siau e tua-bin-sin (moo-sin-a).Gua-bin the i ang.

Âng-á-siù-thiāu ká án-ne kóng, Āu-pái góa beh iōng chôan-lô tō u lí-iû--ah,
Hah, tán chiok-kú--ah.

Invasion of privacy

Since Weichen has again already done such a bang up job writing on this topic, I'll translate his post instead of rewriting it. I don't draw the same final conclusion as Weichen does -- I believe the invasions of privacy would be used for much more private retribution -- but the law is ultimately as dangerous as he suggests.

The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is by nature an authoritarian party, and so now that they have returned to power, they are doing everything they can to again make Taiwan an authoritarian state. Now, the Ministry of Justice and KMT legislators are in cahoots to pass a new "Personal Information Protection Law" which would allow public representatives [like legislators] to look up people's personally information without any cause. Every person's personal and private information would be laid bare to the KMT.

All netizens should note, actually the target of this law is pan-green netizens. Why have the KMT's netizens secretly established their base at the Legislative Yuan's Cingdao House? Is it just a coincidence that the office of the legislator who raised this bill is also in the Cingdao House?

In the future, the KMT's website will not just be used to disseminate propaganda, but will be used to bring to Taiwan that Chinese habit of [human flesh searches.] If the law is amended, legislative authority can also be consolidated and the personal information of pan-green supporters can be used to purge opponents, or perhaps given to the Chinese PLA. Any supporters of Taiwanese independence, of the DPP, or any anti-Chinese person can be listed in preparation for a massacre or crucification.

The significance of this law cannot be underestimated.

ICRT rounds some stuff up

And the result is a pretty interesting mix of news:

Senior officials here are hinting it's possible, but not likely ... that an
Economic Comprehensive Framework Agreement ... or ECFA ... will be discussed
at the next round of cross strait talks.

Straits Exchange Foundation chairman P.K. Chiang said the scope of the
agreement is as yet uncertain ... and that relevant agencies here are still
researching the matter.

He added that the Mainland Affairs Council has yet to authorize discussions
on the matter at the upcoming round of talks ... saying its inclusion on the
agenda will depend on future developments.

In other words, we'll do all the secret negotiations first and then just rubber stamp it when the time comes. Make sure to read Michael Turton's post on this subject today. It really makes the case of how the agreement really is more political than the KMT would like you to believe.

The Ministry of National Defense says starting 2011, the armed forces will
increase the percentage of voluntary enlistment by 10 percent every year
until they reach the goal of 100 percent of voluntary military service by the
end of 2014.

Chen Zhao-min says then in 2015, except for those volunteering to join the
army, all young men of the right age will receive four-months military
training and become a reserve force.

Meanwhile Chen says his ministry is working on an overhaul of the defense
system to fit with this dramatic change and will present a complete report to
the Legislature in June.

In principal I dislike compulsory service, but I worry about how this will affect combat readiness -- I suspect in a very negative way.

The Ministry of Finance is trying to allay fears that the government will
increase the number of tax audits it performs to make up for shortfalls in
tax revenues.

With the poor economic climate, lawmakers are calling on a one-year
moratorium on computerized audits.

However, Finance Minister Li Shu-de says there's no need, making the point
that each year there are only 20,000 randomly-chosen tax accounts examined.

Now that is comical! Don't do audits since more people will likely evade taxes! But that's ok, don't worry, we don't do many audits anyway!

Confirmed...

I have confirmed that this information is in fact on the prosecutors' tapes:

Yesterday Chen's office released the testimony of Koo from November 4th... Prosecutor Chu Chao-liang (朱朝亮) said to Koo: "How about we first chat about some details of the case, I want to understand first and then I will tell you what other [witnesses] have said, and then we can [compare and decide] whether or not the testimony is correct."

Chen's office said this shows the special prosecutor was obviously attempting to lead the witness, and that later, Chu also said: "The amount of 400million is something you ought to say. You think about it, because it has already been a long time [since this happened]. At least we are sure that this is what you said to [Taiwan Cement Group (台泥) chairman] Leslie Koo (辜成允), this is [the amount] you mentioned to Leslie Koo."

Most damning of all?

Prosecutor Wu Wenchung (吳文忠): [responding to a question from Koo] "Yes, otherwise it will be exhausting later. If we can, we'd like to finish [your testimony] today."
Prosecutor Chu: "Take your time thinking about it."
Jefferey Koo: "I understand what you mean. I need to at least help, I must avoid being more of a hindrance than a help."
Chu: "You must avoid being more of a hindrance than a help, [otherwise] [the case] will be wrecked."

The prosecutors argue that immediately after that dozy of a line, Chu said "But of course you should tell the truth." But I think the implications are obvious.

Again: Chen & his wife are clearly guilty of tax evasion, and very likely took some very large "political donations" and returned favors, which pretty much constitutes the definition of a bribe even though it may be hard to prove legally.

But that in no way makes the highly personal, politically-tinted prosecution of Chen any more comforting.

Links

China ready to talk peace: Wen

Talks require ‘1992 consensus,’ goodwill: Taiwan

China says ready to talk, end hostilities

Economic pact with China would prevent Taiwan's marginalization: KMT

Economists slam plan to sign an ECFA, Protesters demand referendum on proposed ECFA

Chen & Koo

There is an article in the Taipei Times today about Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) questioning the reliability of Chinatrust Financial Holding Co vice chairman Jeffrey Koo Jr's (辜仲諒) testimony.

First, Koo flew back to Taiwan to give this testimony with no fear of arrest, apparently in some sort of deal with the prosecutors though everyone denies it. Second, Koo seems to have been willing to fabricate testimony.

The article lays out Koo's statements and involvement in the case:

Koo said he introduced Tsai Ming-chieh to Taiwan Cement Group (台泥) chairman Leslie Koo (辜成允). Prosecutors allege Chen received kickbacks from the sale of a plot of Leslie Koo-owned land in Longtan (龍潭), Taoyuan County, to the Hsinchu Science Park Administration.

After the deal was completed, [First Lady] Wu allegedly told Jeffrey Koo: “You owe me NT$400 million [US$11.4 million]...."

He said that ever since Chen became mayor of Taipei, Chen would tell him the “big picture,” while the former first lady would tell him the actual amount of money to be paid.

“The president would never tell you how much money he wants,” he said.

Prosecutors allege that the Koo's Group had secured billions of NT dollars in kickbacks from selling land to the government for the development of an industrial park after giving NT$400 million to Chen and his wife.

Wu has admitted taking NT$200 million and insisted it was a political donation.

OK, now for Chen's strongest objections:

Chen said Jeffrey Koo should not be a witness, but a suspect, because he is heavily involved in the case. He also questioned the validity of Koo's testimony and suspected that prosecutors asked leading questions to produce the answers they wanted. He added that prosecutors violated protocol by revealing the testimony of others to Jeffrey Koo.

You may be wondering, "what testimony was revealed?" And while I can't tell you the specifics of that, there was some very revealing information on this very topic not that long ago. While watching FTV, I saw something and a Google search turned up the article I was looking for:

Yesterday Chen's office released the testimony of Koo from November 4th... Prosecutor Chu Chao-liang (朱朝亮) said to Koo: "How about we first chat about some details of the case, I want to understand first and then I will tell you what other [witnesses] have said, and then we can [compare and decide] whether or not the testimony is correct."

Chen's office said this shows the special prosecutor was obviously attempting to lead the witness, and that later, Chu also said: "The amount of 400million is something you ought to say. You think about it, because it has already been a long time [since this happened]. At least we are sure that this is what you said to [Taiwan Cement Group (台泥) chairman] Leslie Koo (辜成允), this is [the amount] you mentioned to Leslie Koo."

Most damning of all?

Prosecutor Wu Wenchung (吳文忠): [responding to a question from Koo] "Yes, otherwise it will be exhausting later. If we can, we'd like to finish [your testimony] today."
Prosecutor Chu: "Take your time thinking about it."
Jefferey Koo: "I understand what you mean. I need to at least help, I must avoid being more of a hindrance than a help."
Chu: "You must avoid being more of a hindrance than a help, [otherwise] [the case] will be wrecked."

Now I haven't heard the tape of that, and I'm having trouble verifying if what Chen's office released was in the official evidence (that would seem insane), so can I get some help on confirming the validity of this? Because if so, I think you really do have to throw out Koo's testimony all together.

Some good news for a change

Premier says he disagrees with Hoklo cash cut (Taipei Times)

Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) said yesterday that he disagreed with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators’ rejection of the budget request for Hoklo accreditation examinations.

Liu told Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators Chiu Yi-ying (邱議瑩) and Chen Ting-fei (陳亭妃) during a legislative session that he would do his best to remedy the lack of funding for the examinations this year....
Hung’s move prompted a demonstration outside the Legislative Yuan last Friday.

The premier yesterday rebutted DPP legislator speculation that Hung initiated the motion at the Cabinet’s request.

He said the Cabinet would request a budget to hold the examinations next year.

Chen Hsueh-yu (陳雪玉), executive secretary and a senior inspector at the ministry’s National Languages Committee, said on Friday that the ministry would not be able to hold the exams this year as a result of the budget cuts.

She said the ministry would consider ways of improving the proficiency of Hoklo teachers.

Let's wait and see what actually happens.

People's Daily = KNN

Michael Turton recently wrote on the reporting priorities of the Kuomintang News Network (KNN).

You will find a shocking coincidence if you look at three websites: the Taiwan section of the People's Daily, the organ of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party; KNN, the English propaganda site aimed at foreigners; and the Central Daily News, the KMT's Chinese-language propaganda organ.

All three are devoting their coverage almost exclusively to the Chen case (though the CDN is trying to cell the upcoming economic agreement as well).

KNN:People's Daily:

CDN:

another round up

The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) once again dominated the elections for legislative committee heads yesterday after the caucus resolved not to yield any convener seats to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).

The KMT took 15 of the 16 seats for committee heads, while the DPP won just one seat.

This comes after previous KMT hints of letting the DPP have 4 seats. Last cycle, the DPP boycotted the committee head votes, not even trying for any seats. That crippled their ability to affect legislation, so they cried uncle; the KMT offered them just 3 seats, which the DPP then again rejected. Wonderful.

Also of great note in world news today:

Obama releases secret Bush anti-terror memos

AP Newsbreak: CIA destroyed 92 interrogation tapes

And so far unconfirmed, but I hope it's true:

Washington has told Moscow that Russian help in resolving Iran's nuclear program would make its missile shield plans for Europe unnecessary, a Russian daily said on Monday, citing White House sources.

round up

Two or three big stories over the weekend that mostly went under the radar.

First, Taiwan Echo covers the unconstitutional National Communication Commission's politically motivated fining of radio stations. In my view, there are likely several aspects to the political motivation -- punishing the stations for being friendly with the opposition, discouraging the stations from helping organize protests in the future (a move which will surely please China whether or not it works), and a dash of pure old-fashioned sadism.

Second, Taipei Detention House’s decided to preemptively announce a plan to limit former President Chen Shui-bian exercise time and the number of visitors allowed to see him if he goes hunger strike again (brief mention in final paragraph here). The decision is shocking in my mind because it is clearly a retributive punishment; Chen's hunger strikes draw sympathy and media attention, so the Detention House decides to limit visitors in order to discourage him. No considerations of Chen's health could have possibly entered the decision making process here. It is a decision targeted at one man, and almost certainly politically motivated.

More embarrassing for the Detention House was their incompetence demonstrated by allowing a Financial Times reporter to interview Chen in the presence of a guard. This naturally infuriated local media, who have been denied such access, and angered KMT legislators, who would prefer to dominate international coverage and framing of the case.

Then there's the KMT's shockingly shameless alteration to it's own 'black exclusion' clause, passed only last November as an election ploy to convince the public the party was changing and would not stand for corruption, by George.

The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) recently relaxed its “black exclusion” clause, allowing party members who were involved in trials before Nov. 22 last year but not convicted in the first trial to run in the party’s primary for year-end city and county chief elections.

The party headquarters informed its local chapters of the regulation yesterday — one day before the first-stage primary registration closes — in a last-minute letter.

Michael Turton also blogs on couple of cold war era pro-Taiwanese independence articles which I browsed through. There were two points I found to be more salient today than they would have been in the past. They are:

Thus, by deliberately choosing the policy of non-commitment and ambiguity the United States has forced itself into an untenable position, and has supplied the Communists with a great leverage in the propaganda war. For they can readily persuade Asian neutrals that the United States is occupying China’s own territory.

and:

Both Chinese Governments have vehemently denounced the idea of Two China as un-Chinese. The Communist leaders have staked their prestige to the very hilt by repeated promises to “liberate Taiwan.” They seem confident that the Chinese on Formosa will not settle down permanently as exiles but will eventually come to terms with the mainland Chinese as repentant sinners. As for the Nationalist Government, to acquiesce in the Two Chinas concept means political suicide. It would be a grave mistake to regard the “Restoration of the Mainland” as a mere slogan for stirring up the flagging morale of the Nationalist armed forces and for attracting the loyalty of the overseas Chinese. A strong case can be made that conquest of the Chinese mainland is indispensable to the survival of the Nationalist Government. In order that the Nationalist regime may continue its claim to be the sole, legitimate government of China, it must keep insisting that conquest of the mainland is still possible and in preparation.

Even though the Nationalists are no longer calling for a re-conquering of China, we should remember that their adherence to the One China policy is not a new-found pragmatism designed to improve Taiwan's economic and security situation vis-a-vis China given modern realities.

One China is still the ideological core of the KMT, a claim masked as policy which the KMT has been making since they arrived in Taiwan; this claim is as absurd now as it was then. It is designed to justify the Nationalist view of history, their control over Taiwan and their determination to crush all possibility of Taiwanese independence, and to secure their party's place in China's future, not just its past.