Sixteen Taiwanese-American Organizations Write To Former President Bill Clinton

Urging him to remain neutral during his Taiwan visit

On November 8th, 2010, sixteen Taiwanese-American organizations sent a joint letter to former President Bill Clinton, who will be visiting Taiwan in mid-November 2010.

The organizations include all major Taiwanese-American groups, such as the Taiwanese Association of America, the North American Taiwanese Professors’ Association, the North American Taiwanese Women’s Association, and the North American Taiwanese Medical Association. It also includes international umbrella organizations such as the World Taiwanese Congress (WTC) and the World Federation of Taiwanese Associations. See below for the full text of the letter and list of signatories.

In the letter, the organizations urge the former president to remain “scrupulously neutral” during his visit, expressing concern that his statements may be misrepresented as endorsing the policies of the KMT administration of president Ma Ying-jeou.

The organizations point out that voters in Taiwan will cast their ballots on November 27th in hotly contested elections for the five major municipalities. “Many topics, such as the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement … have turned into sensitive campaign issues” , wrote the organizations.

The letter also states that during the past months, Taipei has frequently used foreign visitors to give the impression that its policies of accommodation with China have “reduced tension” across the Taiwan Strait. The organizations write: “In our view, this is a flawed and superficial argument. China lessened its threats only because the Ma administration has made Taiwan subservient. In fact, the number of missiles China targets at Taiwan has increased.”

The organization emphasize that they worked hard for Taiwan’s democracy, but that “…the Ma administration has drifted in China’s direction and deviated from the status quo that the U.S. traditionally advocates. This is at the great expense of freedom, democracy and human rights in Taiwan.”

The organizations reiterate that freedom, democracy and human rights are core U.S. values and urge the former President to speak out openly and forcefully for them while in Taiwan.

They conclude by lauding former president Clinton for his 2000 statements that Taiwan’s future must be resolved peacefully and with the assent of the people of Taiwan. They urge him to reiterate these remarks, saying this would contribute greatly to the right of the Taiwanese people to determine their own future, free from coercion by China.

Joint Letter to President Clinton

Dear President Clinton,

From press reports we understand that you will visit Taiwan during your Asia tour in mid November, 2010. As leaders of Taiwanese-American and affiliated organizations, we are delighted that you will bestow on Taiwan the high-profile attention it deserves. At the same time, we want to take this opportunity to raise an issue of concern to our community here in the United States as well as to our relatives and friends in Taiwan.

We are apprehensive that unwittingly your visit may be used by the Ma administration to score political points. Voters in Taiwan will cast their ballots on November 27 in the hotly contested five-municipality mayoral elections. Many topics, such as the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement recently concluded with China by the Ma administration, have turned into sensitive campaign issues. We appeal to you to remain scrupulously neutral. If a meeting with President Ma Ying-jeou is entertained, we hope you will also grant an audience to Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen of the Democratic Progressive Party.

Many of us fear that statements you make in Taiwan may be misrepresented as endorsing the policies of the Ma administration. During the past months, Taipei has frequently used foreign visitors to give the impression that its policies of accommodation with China have “reduced tension” across the Taiwan Strait. In our view, this is a flawed and superficial argument. China lessened its threats only because Taiwan has become subservient. In fact, the number of missiles China targets at Taiwan has increased.

As individuals who have worked hard for Taiwan’s democracy, we are distressed that the Ma administration has drifted in China’s direction and deviated from the status quo that the U.S. traditionally advocates, all at the expense of freedom, democracy and human rights in Taiwan. Reports from Freedom House and Reporters Without Borders attest to this fact. Freedom, democracy and human rights are core U.S. values. We request that you speak out openly and forcefully for them while in Taiwan.

We recall fondly that on February 24, 2000, you proclaimed the U.S. would “continue to make absolutely clear that the issues between Beijing and Taiwan must be resolved peacefully and with the assent of the people of Taiwan.” We implore you to reiterate that position. In so doing, you would contribute greatly to the right of the Taiwanese people to determine their own future, free from coercion by China. Thank you for your attention. We wish you Godspeed.

Sincerely yours,

• Kang-Hou Wang, President, Dr. Kang-Lu Wang Memorial Foundation
• Terri Giles, Executive Director, Formosa Foundation
• Linda Lin, President, Formosan Association for Human Rights
• Bob I. Yang, President, Formosan Association for Public Affairs
• John Hsu, President, Friends of Taiwan, Inc.
• Rev. Shang Nan Tsai, Chairman, National Taiwanese Presbyterian Council (U.S.A.)
• Shyu-tu Lee, President, North America Taiwanese Professors’ Association
• Leanne Lian-Yuan Chiou, President, North America Taiwanese Women’s Association
• James Tu, President, North American Taiwanese Engineers Association
• Norman Chiou, President, North American Taiwanese Medical Association
• Ben Liu, President, Professor Chen Wen-Chen Memorial Foundation
• Chanchi Lee, President, Taiwan Hakka Association for Public Affairs in North America
• Chung-nan Shih, President, Taiwanese Association of America
• Susan Chang, President, World Federation of Taiwanese Associations
• Susan Chang, Coordinator, World Taiwanese Congress
• James S. Chen, Chairman, World United Formosans for Independence-U.S.A.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore (Flickr)

The post Sixteen Taiwanese-American Organizations Write To Former President Bill Clinton appeared first on Formosan Association for Public Affairs.

FAPA Criticizes Ma Statements To Associated Press

Disregard for the will of the Taiwanese people

The Formosan Association for Public Affairs – a Washington DC-based Taiwanese-American grassroots organization – today expressed strong criticism of statements recently made by Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou in an interview with Associated Press.

In the October 19th 2010 interview Ma indicated that he was prepared to discuss “political agreements” with China moving Taiwan towards “unification” with China if he wins re-election in 2012.

FAPA President Bob Yang said that the interview clearly reflects the prevailing view in the Ma administration that it wants to move in the direction of political union with China. Yet, polls consistently show that the great majority of the people of Taiwan do not desire absorption by China. Said Yang: “Ma is paying lip service to democracy in Taiwan, but in the meantime moving Taiwan in China’s direction at the expense of human rights and democracy in Taiwan.”

Yang added: “During the past two years we have seen ample evidence that the Ma administration has a disregard for human rights and democracy: it has abused the judiciary to go after members of the former DPP government, it has abridged press freedom, and moved ahead with the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) with China with little transparency or checks and balances.”

Yang said that he hoped the people of Taiwan would see through the deliberate attempts by the Ma administration to prevent the people of the island nation to make a free and democratic decision on their future. He said that freedom and democracy will only prevail if the Taiwanese people support candidates and parties that really identify with the island, its unique history and vibrant, multi-faceted culture.

Yang added that during the 2008 election campaign, Ma gave the appearance of being “Taiwanese” and in favor of a free and democratic Taiwan. However, after his inauguration Ma has left no stone unturned in emphasizing his “Chinese” heritage and identity, and has worked ceaselessly to tighten Taiwan’s links with China.

Yang concluded that he was particularly concerned about the fact that the Ma administration continued to drift in China’s direction, while all other democratic nations in the region were aligning themselves more closely with the United States on issues such as the South China Sea and the tension surrounding the Korean Peninsula.

During the past weeks, the Ma administration has also given the appearance of siding with China on the conflict between Japan and China regarding the Senkakus/Diaoyutai, with the Taipei government coming to the astounding position that it did not have a disagreement with China “because the ROC Constitution states that China is still a territory of the ROC.”

FAPA President Bob Yang stated that this position flies in the face of the reality that the PRC has been a separate country since 1949, and reflects the ossified thinking of the present rulers in Taipei.

Photo Credit: 張永泰（Wikipedia Commons）

The post FAPA Criticizes Ma Statements To Associated Press appeared first on Formosan Association for Public Affairs.

KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou In Washington: Unreal, Unclear And Unacceptable

The visit of KMT Chairman and Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou to Washington DC on March 22^nd and 23^rd 2006 raised more questions than that it brought answers.

The main theme of his presentation at the various think-tanks was that he could forge a peace agreement with China for 30/40/50 years, and that he could pull this off because “both sides” would work forward based on the so-called “1992 consensus”.  The key problem with this rosy scenario is that China never accepted the KMT’s version of “each side its own interpretation” (of what ” One China” means).  In fact, it recently became clear that the “1992 consensus” never existed: KMT legislator Su Chi admitted that it was a fabrication.

Mr. Ma’s proposal is thus unreal at several levels, but mainly because it presupposes that the PRC will accept the ROC as a sovereign entity — an ROC to which Mr. Ma said he proudly “pledged allegiance.”  China has consistently rejected the ROC as a continuing political entity.  The proposal also looks very much like the old “interim agreement”  proposed by Prof. Kenneth Lieberthal, which has been dismissed as unacceptable by both China and Taiwan.

Mr. Ma said that he wanted to work towards “common vision” of  peace and  prosperity between Taiwan and China.   He said that if the KMT comes to power, it will keep the five noes, and  affirm the status quo.  Throughout his stay in DC, he never discussed the fact that Taiwan’s democratic transition was driven by the DPP, and that the KMT  — as Taiwan’s former authoritarian regime —  had been responsible for the island’s  unhappy,  undemocratic past.

When asked during the Brookings session and at the National Press Club why it seemed that the Kuomintang was seeking reconciliation with the undemocratic rulers in China when it was unable to move towards reconciliation with the democratically-elected DPP government in Taiwan, Mr. Ma was again evasive, and started to talk about totally unrelated topics.

However, Mr. Ma was most vulnerable when he started to discuss the KMT’s plans for the future: he said the five noes are too passive, and that therefore he proposes the “five do’s”: 1) resume talks between two sides, 2) work towards a peace accord in which both sides agree neither move towards independence or unification for 50 years.  3) Have Military Confidence Building Measures, 4) try to achieve a modus vivendi on Taiwan’s participation in international organizations, based on pragmatism  (no specifics….), and  5) accelerate cultural and educational exchanges, recognize degrees from Chinese universities and accept Chinese students in Taiwan universities.

FAPA President C.T. Lee commented, saying that for the past six years the DPP government has expressed its willingness to sit down with the Chinese government, but that Beijing has always insisted that Taiwan accept the “One China Principle” as defined by Beijing.  As this would violate the sovereignty of Taiwan as a free and democratic nation, the DPP government has refused.  Mr. Ma said nothing about whether he would accept  Beijing ‘s “One China” definition.

Mr. Ma’s plans were also criticized by think-tank scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, who said that Ma’s plans seem to draw Taiwan into a Chinese sphere of influence, and that this would be detrimental to US strategic interests in East Asia.

On  another important issue on the table – the KMT’s blockage of the special budget for the arms package approved by President Bush in 2001 —  Mr. Ma tried to play a partisan game by blaming the DPP government, while neglecting to mention that it was the KMT caucus in the Legislative Yuan that blocked the budget proposal for 47  times during the past two years, preventing it from even being placed on the agenda of the legislature for any discussion.   He also did not mention that the arms package was defined in the late 1990s, when the KMT was still in power.

In response by a direct question on the issue by former DOD and  National Security Council official Kurt Campbell at a meeting at Brookings, Mr. Ma remained characteristically vague, only saying that the KMT supported a “reasonable arms package”, but adding that this depended on a) Taiwan’s defense needs, b) the Cross Strait situation, c) the financial picture, and d) public opinion.  In other words:  just some generalities and no commitment.

Mr. Ma also said he opposed the purchase of PAC-3 missile defense system on the basis of the logic that it “failed” in the March 2004 referendum (it actually received overwhelming support — some 90% — of those who voted, but didn’t receive the required 50% of eligible voters –  as is required for a referendum), but at the same time, he does support Cross-Strait Dialogue, which was the topic of the second clause of exactly the same Referendum.

Photo Credit: Flickr

The post KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou In Washington: Unreal, Unclear And Unacceptable appeared first on Formosan Association for Public Affairs.