The Mission, not the Man

Here are 2 recent stories regarding the current and former presidents of Taiwan:

President Chen says he'll resign if given a stable legislative majority he's unable to complete his reforms within 2 years.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2004/11/29/2003213010/print

Chen vows change with majority
By Jewel Huang
STAFF REPORTER
Monday, Nov 29, 2004,Page 2

President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) yesterday pledged that he is willing to resign from his presidency if the pan-greens win a majority in the legislature and he still cannot govern the nation well.

Chen made the vow during a campaign rally held in Kaohsiung City last night.

During the rally, Chen once again said that it was imperative that the pan-greens are successful in the legislative elections, adding that the pan-blues have exploited their majority in the legislature while attempting to paralyze the government over the past three years.

Chen said, when he took over the office of Taipei Mayor in 1998, he told Taipei's citizens that he would improve Taipei's notorious traffic situation within two years. After his determined efforts, the traffic situation was improved.

"I believed that if people of Taiwan could give us a chance and support the pan-green camp to win a majority in the legislature -- only give us two years and I promise that I will do a good job as a president and lead the country to become a great, normal and complete country," Chen said. "Otherwise, I am willing to step down as president."

Former President Lee says once he has achieved his goal of transforming Taiwan into a normal country, taking its place among all the other countries in the world, he'll retire from political life.

http://english.www.gov.tw/maintain/viewContent.jsp?recid=101277&id=11

Lee vows to quit when Taiwan becomes 'normal'
Date:  2004/12/02 17:29:29
SOURCE:  Taiwan News
URL:  http://www.etaiwannews.com/Taiwan/Politics/2004/12/02/1101954470.htm

Former President Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) said on Wednesday that, should Taiwan become a "normal country", a fulfillment of his life-long mission, he will retire from the political scene.

Lee -- the founder of the Taiwan Solidarity Union -- made the statement at a rally in Kaohsiung City to stump for the party's legislative candidate Tseng Tsan-teng.

Lee reiterated that the people of Taiwan should step out on the road to realizing the goals of enacting a new Constitution through referendum as well as rectifying the name of the country. Current President Chen Shui-bian has repeatedly pledged resistance to changing the name of the country.

"To build Taiwan as a normal nation has been my mission all of my life, Lee said. If I can make it happen, I will consider it a literal success. Then I will say farewell to all Taiwanese," Lee said.

Lee stated that Taiwan would face a critical period over the next three years, and if a stable political system could be established, the people would be able to successfully overcome the challenges generated by major international situations.

Comment

"By their fruits ye shall know them"

In contrast to the 2 major opposition party leaders (Lien and Soong), the current and former presidents place greater emphasis on Taiwan than on their own careers. Chen has offered to step down within two years if he cannot lead Taiwan into becoming a complete and normal country if the people provide him with a stable majority in the legislature to enact his reforms. Lee has declared his intention to step down if he is able to complete his mission of transforming Taiwan into a normal country from the shadow of the exiled ROC government.

Chen is willing to give up office and let someone else take over if he is unable to make any further progress along his goals; Lee is willing to withdraw from public life altogether once his work is done. A different mindset is in place with the other two, who have lost the presidential race in 2000, lost again in 2004, and have split their own party into separate competing organizations; evidently, their own careers and ambitions are more important to them than working for the good of Taiwan.

Historians have pointed to the cult of personality that pervades throughout Chinese history: The little red book of Mao's teachings was a standard fixture of everyday Chinese citizens; his persona had been infused into the daily lives of the Chinese workers, who showered adulation upon their leader like subjects offering tribute to their emperor. When Chiang Kai-shek was exiled into Taiwan, he set up a cult of worship, erecting thousands of statues of himself throughout the island, making school children chant panegyrics each day to wish him a long and healthy life.

The writer and critic Bo Yang has commented upon the authoritarian tendencies in Chinese culture in his book The Ugly Chinaman (He prefers this translation of the title over the less derogatory The Ugly Chinese). Despite having worked very hard to cast off the prior regime which enforced martial law for over 40 years, Taiwanese still have to contend with remnants of the past in the political scene. Cynics would say that all political leaders in Taiwan are power-hungry would-be demagogues, and that nothing distinguishes them. Examining the parties' words and deeds, however, one can find that "By their fruits, ye shall know them".

Interview with John Tkacik of Heritage Foundation

The following is an insightful interview with John J. Tkacik, Jr, Research Fellow in China Policy at the Heritage foundation's Asian Studies Center.

http://etaiwannews.com/Taiwan/Politics/2004/12/01/1101868637.htm

Tkacik is a research fellow at the Asian Studies Center of the Heritage Foundation and is visiting Taiwan this week.

Taiwan News: From your observations, has Taiwan repaired the damage recently made to U.S.-Taiwan bilateral ties?

Tkacik: The Chen (Shui-bian) administration has made an effort to be more transparent to the Bush administration. In late April and early May, he sent Chiou I-jen (邱義仁) to the United States with a team to discuss the constitution issue, and I think that meeting reassured the United States that President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) will follow constitutional processes.

I really do think that Secretary Colin Powell's statements (that Taiwan was not a sovereign, independent country) on October 25 were not very well considered. I was with some senior Bush administration people right after that who were rather dismayed at the statement. There is no question in my mind that Secretary Powell's views were not discussed in the administration at all.

The administration in Washington was surprised by what he said, and Secretary Powell made an effort to go back and give a deeper interpretation to what he actually meant. So, I wouldn't say that Secretary Powell's comment has anything to do with President Chen Shui-bian. In fact, President Chen Shui-bian's interaction with Washington has been very good since March 20.

My feeling is that in the United States, all we wanted was that Taiwan retain the name of Republic of China, and there was a feeling in Washington changing the name was going to be a problem. As a result, I think President Chen was trying to meet Washington's request by saying "Well, Republic of China means Taiwan, Taiwan means the Republic of China."

They (people in Washington) might have been surprised to hear that because they didn't expect him to say that. But I think Washington cannot have too many complaints if President Chen Shui-bian continues that line.

The real concern is what could be considered a legitimate cause of war in Beijing. That is the key question. The problem in Beijing is that they think everything is cause for war. I think the real confusion in Washington is not from President Chen Shui-bian but really comes from trying to figure out what China's bottom line is. China says everything is its bottom line, and consequently it is not credible.

TN: From your point of view, do you see the Bush administration adopting a tougher policy toward Taiwan?

Tkacik: It remains to be seen. I think President Bush had already said to the Chinese leadership several times that he personally is against Taiwan independence. It has been made clear to Chinese that it is President Bush's personal view, and President Bush doesn't mean that to be the government's view.

President Bush has invited Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) to come to visit Washington, and the Chinese have invited President Bush to visit China. None of this is firm yet. (But) when that happens, there probably will have to be an interagency review in Washington on the situation in the Taiwan Strait. I do not think this would result in a tougher policy, if you mean by tougher policy that the U.S. is going to put pressure on Taiwan. I think the result of the legislative election will be looked at in Washington as an indicator of where Taiwan is going. The key in Washington will be, "Is there a consensus among people in Taiwan as to the future of their country, and is there a consensus among the people of Taiwan to actually take concrete actions to defend their choices."

When President Bush said in April of 2001 that U.S. would do whatever it took to defend Taiwan, he meant exactly that. That the United States will help Taiwan defend itself, but Taiwan can't be a bystander in this defense.

There is a feeling in Washington now that by not passing the special budget, Taiwan is demonstrating that it doesn't have the will to defend itself and consequently doesn't have the will to take the next step, which is to crystallize its identity as a political entity separated from China.

TN: There seems to be an impression that the Bush administration hasn't been too happy with Taiwanese' challenging its "one-China" policy. Have you felt this is so?

Tkacik: I just wrote a book on challenging the "one-China" policy, and nobody is complaining to me about that. Nobody is coming to me and said that you can't write that book.

The "one-China" policy hasn't been implemented for decades, because nobody knows what the "one-China" policy is.

The idea of our "one-China" policy is perhaps the effective one, because it involves ambiguity, where the U.S. can say the words "one China," but what we mean by "one-China" is not that China owns Taiwan but simply that there is only one government of China at the time, where the Chinese can pretend that "one-China" means they own Taiwan.

If Taiwan wants to enter the United Nations, it has to realize that this is going to be a very long-term process, to be achieved in well-thought-out stages.

The first stage has to be that Taiwan develops a credible capability and credible resolution to defend itself as a country. Until it can do that, it can't go to the next steps.

TN: Do you see the U.S. government taking a more active role into the cross-strait dialogue in the coming years?

Tkacik: As far as I can see, the United States doesn't want to be actively involved in the discussions between Beijing and Taipei, because you wind up looking like you are taking one side or the other. The U.S. policy has been that China should engage Taiwan in a dialogue as soon as possible, without any preconditions, meaning no "one-China" precondition. President Bush's position to the Chinese government I understand is exactly that. Whenever he meets Chinese leaders, he says we urge a dialogue with Taiwan without pre-condition and on an equal basis, and that's probably the stand of our involvement.

Comment

Unlike most journalists and lazy thinkers, Tkacik unravels the 'One China' policy, exposing its nebulousness and ambiguity:

The idea of our "one-China" policy is perhaps the effective one, because it involves ambiguity, where the U.S. can say the words "one China," but what we mean by "one-China" is not that China owns Taiwan but simply that there is only one government of China at the time, where the Chinese can pretend that "one-China" means they own Taiwan.

The US holds that this 'One-China' policy maintains stability across the Taiwan Strait. The question remains, though: for how long?

China pressuring corporations to refrain from referring to Taiwan as country

According to this TaiwanNews article:

China blasts firms for listing Taiwan as 'country'

http://www.etaiwannews.com/Taiwan/Politics/2004/11/27/1101524634.htm

Taiwan is a democratic country and has no intention of intervening in the issue of whether or not international companies observe this categorization, the nation's top cross-strait policymaking body said in reaction to Beijing's protest to some international companies over the issue.

As part of its efforts to press its "one-China" policy, Beijing has shifted its attention to international companies after it was discovered that some enterprises have categorized Taiwan as a "country" on their global Web sites.

Companies challenged by China media include McDonald's, Siemens, Mercedes, Audi, and General Motors Corporation.

Most of the five companies' Taiwan branches chose to remain silent yesterday, noting they would follow the decisions made by their headquarters, while GM's public relations department noted that the company had removed the word "country" from its Web site in relation to Taiwan and had substituted "location."

Chiu Tai-san (邱太三), Vice Chairman and spokesman of the Mainland Affairs Council, said that that the government departments in Taiwan totally respect the choice of private organizations on the issue. "Some Taiwanese businessmen have even listed Taiwan under China on their business cards," Chui said. "But, this issue has nothing to do with government authorities."

Among the five named companies, McDonald's could be the one under the most pressure for not only failing to include China on its Web site's list of countries, but also for listing Taiwan and Hong Kong as countries.

A campaign to boycott McDonald's has reportedly been initiated on Internet chat rooms in China.

Taiwan's McDonald's branch declined to comment on the issue yesterday, saying that it usually does not address issues in other markets.

As of press time last night, the Web sites of Audi, Macdonald's, and Mercedes had made no changes with regard to their listing of Taiwan, while Siemens reportedly added the word "China" after "Taiwan."

In order to sidestep the sensitive political situation between Taiwan and China, some international companies, such as Motorola and Ericsson, have avoided referring to Taiwan as a country on their official Web sites.

Some other companies, however, have gotten caught in the crossfire.

In August last year, Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) blasted the Seattle-based Boeing Co. for canceling a scheduled visit to its facilities, under pressure from Beijing.

"Shame on Boeing!" the vice president declared at the time.

Comment

As of this writing, it is not clear which company websites have been modified to refer to Taiwan as a locale within China. A cursory examination of: Siemens (http://www.siemens.com) indicates the a dropdown box under the heading Siemens Web Sites. In that dropdown box Taiwan is listed simply as Taiwan, just as China is simply listed as China. Selecting the Taiwan entry redirects to the website: http://www.siemens.com.tw/index.htm. On this new page is another dropdown box instructing the user to "choose your country". The contents of that dropdown lists Taiwan singularly, without any reference or annotation as being part of China.


Likewise, the General Motors website (www.http://www.gm.com/automotive/vehicle_shopping/worldwide_sites) lists Taiwan in a the Asia/Pacific region alongside Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malayasia, New Zealand, Phillipines, Singapore, and Thailand. The heading on this pages states:

Worldwide Sites

You can find GM products and services all over the world. For more information in your area, please choose a location from the list below.

Perhaps that's what the article meant when it indicated that the word 'location' was substituted for the word 'country'. Perhaps the original phrasing read: You can find GM products and services all over the world. For more information in your area, please choose a COUNTRY from the list below.

If that is the case, then Taiwan has lost little in this campaign. GM may have made a corporate decision that it wishes to withdraw from all national and political debates, and will simply refer to its international divisions as locations and not as countries. This is a reasonable policy, as long as it is applied evenly. So long as Australia, China, et al are consistently referred to as locations rather than as countries, then Taiwan will not have been ostracized.

This may not be the best outcome, as in the minds of the world, China and other nations will always be referred to as countries, while Taiwan's status remains in doubt. Until Taiwanese are willing to stand up and uniformly declare that they form a country, this may be the best that can be hoped for.


Additional remarks

The ineffectiveness of China's campaign notwithstanding in the article above, it is not surprising that China would pressure major corporations to remove references to Taiwan as a country. This comes upon the heels of outgoing US Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks on Oct 25, 2004 that Taiwan "is not independent", "does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation", and that the US wants "to see both sides not take unilateral action that would prejudice an eventual outcome, a reunification that all parties are seeking," In another appearance on Oct 27, 2004, Powell would not repeat or re-iterate this statements, when pressed for cliarfication, leading various observers to conclude that Powell had misspoken and deviated from the standard US State Department policy formulation.

Evidently, China is trying to capitalize upon Powell's departure from standard US State Department phrasing by using its economic clout to manipulate major coporations into refraining from referring to Taiwan as a country. The most unrecalcitrant companies will list Taiwan as "Taiwan, China", while those willing to accommodate China will list Taiwan as "Taiwan Region" or "Taiwan Location"; the upshot is that every other nation in world, is accorded the courtesy of being referred to as a country, while Taiwan is denied that right. It appears that China is determined to realize Powell's remark that Taiwan "does not enjoy soverignty as a nation" by making it invisible as a nation in the eyes of the world.

Should the Taiwanese remain idle while China continues to undermine its standing? Despite their aggressive posturing, Taiwanese are not defenseless does. The per capita purchasing power of Taiwanese nationals and expatriates far exceeds those of China. One way to counter China's influence is to notify the companies in question that Taiwanese will not purchase any products from a company which has delisted Taiwan from the community of nations.

The following sample text may be used to send a letter or email to the company's representatives:

To: the CEO of Appeasement, Inc.
One Chamberlain Way


Dear CEO:

It has come to my attention that Appeasement, Inc has listed Taiwan on its website as a region rather than as a country. The website http://www.appeasement.com/some/utter/nonsense.html indicates Taiwan Region, where previously Taiwan was simply listed as Taiwan. That Taiwan is most certainly a country has been established by the Montevideo Convention, of which the US and other European nations are signatory, that an independent state has the following characteristics: 1) a permanent population; 2) a defined territory; 3) a government that controls said territory; and 4) the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. The Montevideo Convention explains that "the political existence of a state is independent of recognition by other states" and "the recognition of a state may be express or tacit." Under these conditions, it is clear that Taiwan is a state, and hence a country.

The main source of objection that seeks to demote Taiwan's status as a country originates from China, which actively undermines Taiwan's standing before the world, based upon irrendentist claims that Taiwan is a part of China. This assertion is groundless as Taiwan has a separate political system, a separate economic system, a separate military and a separate territory. Taiwanese do not pay taxes to China, do not follow Chinese laws, do not carry China's passport, and do not use China's currency.

As a Taiwanese-American, I am very concerned by suggestions that a well-established company such as Appeasement, Inc. would allow itself to be manipulated by China's political arm. If this bears out, then I would prefer not to do any further business with Appeasement, Inc.

Sincerely,