By Jerome Keating
WHEN TAIWAN WAS a one-party state dictatorship under the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the power of the country was in its president.
The Legislative Yuan was a rubber stamp body in which each legislator who had been elected back in 1947 was guaranteed his position for life. The only thing legislators had to do was approve what dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and later what his son, former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), directed.
This all began to change under former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) when the "iron rice bowl" legislators who had not yet died had to step down. After 1992 legislators had to run for office and compete with members of other newly allowed parties.
In 1996, another major change happened in Taiwan. The president, like members of the Legislative Yuan, had to be elected by the public. At this point the balance of power in Taiwan began to shift from the presidency to the Legislative Yuan.
This is the way it is today. The legislature creates laws, controls budgets and confirms emergency orders. It can tell the Executive Yuan to change its policies, it can amend the Constitution and it can settle disputes in matters of self-governance of special municipalities, counties, cities and other administrative units. It can also paralyze the country.
The KMT and its pan-blue alliance have always controlled the Legislative Yuan -- from the rubber stamp days of the Chiangs through today. They use it to promote their own agenda and not that of the public. Whatever smoke and mirrors the pan-blue media fabricates to make it seem like today's problems are the result of the presidency, the reality is that the majority of the problems lay at the door of the pan-blue legislature.
One serious problem is the injustice of not having a level playing field for all political parties in Taiwan. The residue of the past one-party state rule is that the KMT still owns the majority of the state assets left over from the Japanese colonial era.
By its own declaration, the KMT admits to resources in excess of US$750 million. This declaration does not include those state assets that have already been siphoned off to the KMT leadership.
All other parties in Taiwan, blue or green, do not have a combined total of US$1 million in assets.
The KMT uses the assets for its own self-aggrandizement and ends: It can out-advertise, out-spend and out-promote any and all of the other parties. This injustice can never be righted as long as the KMT controls the majority in the Legislative Yuan.
The KMT has repeatedly blocked the people of Taiwan from regaining what belongs to them. In the upcoming elections, the KMT is telling its members to boycott a referendum on its ill-gotten assets. The pan-blue dominated legislature must go before Taiwan can be truly democratic.
In addition to a need for justice, the KMT-led pan-blue Legislative Yuan has sabotaged the country, forcing it into paralysis as it strives to regain its lost privilege.
The KMT would rather see Taiwan flounder than lose its legislative privilege and thus its assets and benefits. Even the crass, bottom-line motivation behind the KMT's goal of unification is more because of personal profit than a warped ideology. If the KMT is voted out in Taiwan, ultimately its leaders would gamble they could ingratiate themselves with the controlling cabal of China.
Their hope would be that by offering Taiwan as a sacrificial lamb they would be feted as heroes and allowed to maintain their privilege as governors of the island. Better to be a Puyi governor appointed by China than to continually risk being a loser in a free election in a democratic state. Note the sniveling way that Lien Chan (連戰) and James Soong (宋楚瑜) -- two-time losers and once long-time enemies of the PRC -- went back to China to be feted after they lost in the last presidential election.
Need other examples of the KMT's sabotage? Examine how the do-nothing legislature blocked the country's arms budget for three years and only finally passed it just before last year's session ended.
Rather than see anything positive happen under President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), they prefer to weaken the country, blocking budgets and appointments to the Control Yuan. In this way, the anti-corruption watchdog of the country would be ineffectual.
Look at the legislative elections. The KMT caused an uproar to protest the Central Election Committee (CEC) ruling for a one-step voting procedure. Many suspect the KMT wanted a two-step procedure so that they could measure how effective bribes were concerning the referendum ballots.
If the KMT paid a voter to oppose the referendum for recovering state assets, the best way to know if the person followed through would be to see if he or she picked up the ballot. If people accept a ballot after getting a bribe, the KMT could wonder why they did so. With a ballot in hand, a person could still secretly vote in favor of the referendum.
Facing a confrontation with the CEC and legal action, the KMT finally accepted a compromise, but almost immediately afterwards, the KMT did an about-face and told its constituents to boycott the referendums.
This exposed the KMT's true intent. Their original referendum on rooting out corruption was a smokescreen to match the green referendum on state assets and the KMT abandoned it without compunction.
The ruckus they raised over the voting procedure was a farce. What they were really after was to stop the state assets referendum.
I do not mean to say that green legislators and officials are free of corruption. Many dogs have learned from the wolves and are driven by the same greed and a system of favors that masks corruption. They too must be weeded out.
But first the playing field must be leveled; the state assets must be properly in the hands of the state and not one political party. Taiwan must get rid of politicians who serve their party to the detriment of the nation.
Level the playing field and progress will follow.
Jerome Keating is a Taiwan-based writer.
2008年1月9日 星期三
Just What the KMT Mean by "Scared"?
By Lien Chan 林洽
THE CHINESE NATIONALIST Party (KMT) has accused the Democratic Progressive Party of hijacking what it calls "the sacred referendums" to mess up the elections, and is therefore urging voters not to vote in the referendums so as not to "destroy" the elections.
The KMT's statement is based on a strange logic.
If a loved one is kidnapped or hurt, we should try to save and protect them, not abandon them. If a sacred and precious belief is being hijacked, we should try to realize it and implement it, not discard it.
Holding referendums concurrently with elections is common in many countries.
In theory, this is considered favorable to maintaining ballot secrecy.
Not only that, but from a more academic perspective, cost sharing can create "spillover" effects, or, to put it more plainly, the elections and referendums can benefit each other by being held on the same day.
To voters, the cost of voting is the time spent. This is an obstacle inherent to democracy.
The cost of the referendum is not just the few hundred million NT dollars spent on administering the elections. The real cost of the elections should be calculated with Taiwan's GDP in mind.
The daily production value created by the public is NT$48.8 billion, or about NT$6 billion per hour.
From this perspective, the cost of voters taking time out to vote is astronomical.
To have time for the polls, people have to sacrifice their work or their leisure time. Helping them save time will increase their willingness to vote.
Thus combining elections, saving time and promoting democracy are three compatible concepts.
Combining the referendums and the legislative elections is good for both the ballots.
If the KMT really believes that the referendum institution is sacred, it should approve of attempts to save voters' time and protect ballot secrecy.
Only political parties that are opposed to the full and free expression of public opinion would worry about "one election hijacking another," only a party relying on money to mobilize voters for the legislative elections would tell supporters to forgo voting in the referendums and only a party with nominees whose interests stand in stark contrast to the referendums would accuse another party of using them to hijack elections.
When the KMT says that the referendums are sacred but refuses to vote in them, it is in fact revealing the true face of its presidential candidate, Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
If the KMT has nothing to hide when it comes to its party assets, or if they support Taiwan's democracy, the party should stand up and convince the public to vote "no" to recovering the party's inappropriately obtained assets.
Instead, the party rejects the referendums altogether, rather than defending itself and justifying its party assets, thus compounding a bad deed by also denying what they claim to hold sacred.
By rejecting the referendums, the KMT is also sacrificing its own anti-corruption referendum. In its attempt to protect its ill-gotten party assets, the KMT has demonstrated to the public the insincerity with which it called for the referendum.
Paraphrasing what has by now become a well-known statement by Ma, I would like to tell the members of the KMT that I see you as human beings, as Taiwanese and I will educate you: The sacred referendums should be carried out and unjustly obtained party assets should be returned.
Lin Chia is a political commentator in Taipei.
THE CHINESE NATIONALIST Party (KMT) has accused the Democratic Progressive Party of hijacking what it calls "the sacred referendums" to mess up the elections, and is therefore urging voters not to vote in the referendums so as not to "destroy" the elections.
The KMT's statement is based on a strange logic.
If a loved one is kidnapped or hurt, we should try to save and protect them, not abandon them. If a sacred and precious belief is being hijacked, we should try to realize it and implement it, not discard it.
Holding referendums concurrently with elections is common in many countries.
In theory, this is considered favorable to maintaining ballot secrecy.
Not only that, but from a more academic perspective, cost sharing can create "spillover" effects, or, to put it more plainly, the elections and referendums can benefit each other by being held on the same day.
To voters, the cost of voting is the time spent. This is an obstacle inherent to democracy.
The cost of the referendum is not just the few hundred million NT dollars spent on administering the elections. The real cost of the elections should be calculated with Taiwan's GDP in mind.
The daily production value created by the public is NT$48.8 billion, or about NT$6 billion per hour.
From this perspective, the cost of voters taking time out to vote is astronomical.
To have time for the polls, people have to sacrifice their work or their leisure time. Helping them save time will increase their willingness to vote.
Thus combining elections, saving time and promoting democracy are three compatible concepts.
Combining the referendums and the legislative elections is good for both the ballots.
If the KMT really believes that the referendum institution is sacred, it should approve of attempts to save voters' time and protect ballot secrecy.
Only political parties that are opposed to the full and free expression of public opinion would worry about "one election hijacking another," only a party relying on money to mobilize voters for the legislative elections would tell supporters to forgo voting in the referendums and only a party with nominees whose interests stand in stark contrast to the referendums would accuse another party of using them to hijack elections.
When the KMT says that the referendums are sacred but refuses to vote in them, it is in fact revealing the true face of its presidential candidate, Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
If the KMT has nothing to hide when it comes to its party assets, or if they support Taiwan's democracy, the party should stand up and convince the public to vote "no" to recovering the party's inappropriately obtained assets.
Instead, the party rejects the referendums altogether, rather than defending itself and justifying its party assets, thus compounding a bad deed by also denying what they claim to hold sacred.
By rejecting the referendums, the KMT is also sacrificing its own anti-corruption referendum. In its attempt to protect its ill-gotten party assets, the KMT has demonstrated to the public the insincerity with which it called for the referendum.
Paraphrasing what has by now become a well-known statement by Ma, I would like to tell the members of the KMT that I see you as human beings, as Taiwanese and I will educate you: The sacred referendums should be carried out and unjustly obtained party assets should be returned.
Lin Chia is a political commentator in Taipei.
China Makes Another Miscalculation
Minister of Foreign Affairs James Huang (黃志芳) returned to Taiwan on Tuesday following his unsuccessful last-ditch mission to save diplomatic ties with Malawi.
Malawi's refusal to receive Huang means a switch of recognition to China now looks inevitable and it will mark the latest strike in Beijing's war of attrition to win the allegiance of the nation's allies.
But one could argue that -- when it is made official -- neither China nor Malawi will prosper, as neither China's geopolitical ambitions nor the plight of the citizens of Malawi will be advanced from the establishment of relations.
Apart from the opportunity to further decrease Taiwan's international space and reduce its number of allies, China's other reason for courting African countries is to secure access to the globe's diminishing natural resources, vital if it is to keep its burgeoning economy ticking over and its massive population pacified. In this respect Malawi, with its unexploited deposits of uranium and bauxite, is a useful acquisition.
Beijing reportedly offered the government of Malawi a financial package totaling US$6 billion in return for breaking ties with Taipei and it is understandable that a poverty-stricken nation like Malawi would be tempted by such a generous offer, given that its annual GDP stands at around US$7 billion. It is unlikely, however, that any of this cash will trickle down to the Malawian population and past experience has shown they will not receive the same medical, agricultural and technical help from Beijing as they have from Taipei's missions.
Many other African countries, such as Angola, Mozambique and Sudan, have given China's unfettered access to their natural resources in return for cash, construction projects and economic development, but more often than not the results fail to live up to the promises.
Human rights activists and foreign aid workers in these countries have voiced concerns that, like European nations before them, China's involvement in Africa often only serves to enrich the continent's already corrupt leaders. BBC reports have also detailed how Chinese construction firms bring in Chinese workers because they are unwilling to train the locals and impart vital skills to the Africans. Peasant Chinese farmers are even being sent to work the African land in an attempt to relieve pressure on land in China. In some cases, locals allege that prisoners are being imported to do hard labor.
This has led African activists to question China's motives and has generated accusations of a new era of imperialism.
Ministry officials expect Malawi to announce its decision to recognize China within the next few days, just in time for Saturday's legislative election -- chosen by Beijing to cause maximum embarrassment to the government.
But China should have learned from its previous ham-fisted attempts -- both direct and indirect -- to meddle in Taiwan's elections, that intervention has the opposite effect, producing a galvanizing effect on large sections of the Taiwanese population. The more China attacks, the more people come to detest its belligerent bullying.
In contrast to viewing the latest loss of an ally as an indication of Taiwan's weakness and another step on the road to international obscurity, people will view it as China's latest insult to Taiwan's sovereignty.
Losing one more ally to China does not really do that much harm to Taiwan's interests, but it makes Beijing's job of achieving its dream of "eventual unification" that much harder.
Taipei Times Editorial, January 10, 2008.
Malawi's refusal to receive Huang means a switch of recognition to China now looks inevitable and it will mark the latest strike in Beijing's war of attrition to win the allegiance of the nation's allies.
But one could argue that -- when it is made official -- neither China nor Malawi will prosper, as neither China's geopolitical ambitions nor the plight of the citizens of Malawi will be advanced from the establishment of relations.
Apart from the opportunity to further decrease Taiwan's international space and reduce its number of allies, China's other reason for courting African countries is to secure access to the globe's diminishing natural resources, vital if it is to keep its burgeoning economy ticking over and its massive population pacified. In this respect Malawi, with its unexploited deposits of uranium and bauxite, is a useful acquisition.
Beijing reportedly offered the government of Malawi a financial package totaling US$6 billion in return for breaking ties with Taipei and it is understandable that a poverty-stricken nation like Malawi would be tempted by such a generous offer, given that its annual GDP stands at around US$7 billion. It is unlikely, however, that any of this cash will trickle down to the Malawian population and past experience has shown they will not receive the same medical, agricultural and technical help from Beijing as they have from Taipei's missions.
Many other African countries, such as Angola, Mozambique and Sudan, have given China's unfettered access to their natural resources in return for cash, construction projects and economic development, but more often than not the results fail to live up to the promises.
Human rights activists and foreign aid workers in these countries have voiced concerns that, like European nations before them, China's involvement in Africa often only serves to enrich the continent's already corrupt leaders. BBC reports have also detailed how Chinese construction firms bring in Chinese workers because they are unwilling to train the locals and impart vital skills to the Africans. Peasant Chinese farmers are even being sent to work the African land in an attempt to relieve pressure on land in China. In some cases, locals allege that prisoners are being imported to do hard labor.
This has led African activists to question China's motives and has generated accusations of a new era of imperialism.
Ministry officials expect Malawi to announce its decision to recognize China within the next few days, just in time for Saturday's legislative election -- chosen by Beijing to cause maximum embarrassment to the government.
But China should have learned from its previous ham-fisted attempts -- both direct and indirect -- to meddle in Taiwan's elections, that intervention has the opposite effect, producing a galvanizing effect on large sections of the Taiwanese population. The more China attacks, the more people come to detest its belligerent bullying.
In contrast to viewing the latest loss of an ally as an indication of Taiwan's weakness and another step on the road to international obscurity, people will view it as China's latest insult to Taiwan's sovereignty.
Losing one more ally to China does not really do that much harm to Taiwan's interests, but it makes Beijing's job of achieving its dream of "eventual unification" that much harder.
Taipei Times Editorial, January 10, 2008.
2008年1月7日 星期一
Economy, Geopolitics Guide Oil Price
Why are oil prices rising when the situation in Iraq seems to be improving, tensions with Iran appear to be easing and a mild late winter is expected in the US?
Now that the price of crude oil has crossed the psychologically important US$100-a-barrel threshold, and then retreated, what direction will it take next?
Many experts say it will go up, then down, and then maybe up again. That, anyway, has been the pattern of the last several years of volatile prices.
The arguments for even higher oil prices are well known. The economies of China and India are booming and hungry for energy. Oil fields in Mexico and the US are drying up, tightening world supplies. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is using oil as a political weapon. Rebels in Nigeria are creating havoc in some of Africa's most productive oil fields.
The war in Iraq rages on. The dollar is weakening, causing hedge funds and traders to flee to oil and other commodities as a safe haven.
But all those factors were in play last summer when the price fell to about US$60 a barrel, before it rallied at the end of the year. The price touched US$100 on Wednesday and surpassed that briefly on Thursday before retreating after the US government reported higher-than-expected heating oil and gasoline supplies. The price settled at US$99.18 a barrel, down 44 cents.
"Predicting oil prices continually demonstrates the perils of prophecy, because oil prices are the derivative of what happens in the global economy and global geopolitics," said Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. Yergin said he could foresee oil prices surging as high as US$150 in the next few years or falling as low as US$40.
John Richels, president of the Devon Energy Corp, an international oil and gas company based in Oklahoma City, said US$150 a barrel was possible, but so was US$55.
"We have to make investments based on our outlook over a long period of time," he said. "It is tough."
Central to the question of where oil prices will go is the effect of high prices on the consumption and development of alternative fuels.
Large amounts of public and private investment are going into solar, wind and biofuel development, but so far they are making only a slight contribution to energy supplies. Scientific and engineering leaps, like developing the atomic bomb or sending a man to the moon, can be made relatively quickly, but they are still measured in years.
Until now, most economists have been surprised that the steady rise in oil prices -- from as low as US$11 less than a decade ago -- has not had a greater effect on US consumers. But with oil prices rising at an increasingly rapid rate over the last few months in conjunction with the housing market slump and credit squeeze, many economists wonder whether oil prices could tip the economy into a recession.
A recession, of course, would curb oil demand. That would push oil prices right back down again, or so the theory goes, as fewer consumers drive to the mall, companies produce and ship less and world trade slows.
"If we are slowing down, we will not be buying as much goods from China and services from India," said Addison Armstrong, director for market research at Tradition Energy, an energy broker that deals with banks and hedge funds.
"My forecast for 2008 is that crude prices will average US$75 a barrel, and that is based on a scenario of a slowing economy in the United States," he said.
But Armstrong and other experts cautioned that a protracted insurgency in Nigeria, a punishing hurricane season or other unpredictable events could take oil prices up.
So why are oil prices going up now? The military situation in Iraq is arguably improving, and Iraqi oil exports are beginning to flow again. Tensions with Iran have eased a bit. There are forecasts for a mild late winter in the US, which should help bolster oil and gasoline inventories going into the spring and summer driving season.
Many experts say the answer lies in the investment decisions of traders and hedge funds. With the markets in equities, housing, credit and currency shaky in the US, traders are betting on oil and other commodities as a perceived safe haven.
Phil Flynn, a vice president and market analyst with the Alaron Trading Corp in Chicago, said the recent interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve had underscored for traders the depths of the country's economic risks and led them to buy oil futures.
Flynn said he thought that oil prices were more likely to fall than rise, "because I think the factors that drove us to today are unlikely to repeat in 2008."
He added that he thinks the dollar will find a bottom this year and that the problems in housing are already priced into the markets.
But most experts say that if oil prices do go down, they will probably not go down very far or for very long.
Richels of Devon Energy said that consumers in Europe and Japan were not feeling the same pressure as Americans because their currencies have been strengthening and not weakening.
"There is still a lot of demand that is outside of the United States," Richels said. "There is increasing oil consumption, particularly in the developing nations, and oil is getting more difficult to find."
NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE, NEW YORK
Now that the price of crude oil has crossed the psychologically important US$100-a-barrel threshold, and then retreated, what direction will it take next?
Many experts say it will go up, then down, and then maybe up again. That, anyway, has been the pattern of the last several years of volatile prices.
The arguments for even higher oil prices are well known. The economies of China and India are booming and hungry for energy. Oil fields in Mexico and the US are drying up, tightening world supplies. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is using oil as a political weapon. Rebels in Nigeria are creating havoc in some of Africa's most productive oil fields.
The war in Iraq rages on. The dollar is weakening, causing hedge funds and traders to flee to oil and other commodities as a safe haven.
But all those factors were in play last summer when the price fell to about US$60 a barrel, before it rallied at the end of the year. The price touched US$100 on Wednesday and surpassed that briefly on Thursday before retreating after the US government reported higher-than-expected heating oil and gasoline supplies. The price settled at US$99.18 a barrel, down 44 cents.
"Predicting oil prices continually demonstrates the perils of prophecy, because oil prices are the derivative of what happens in the global economy and global geopolitics," said Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. Yergin said he could foresee oil prices surging as high as US$150 in the next few years or falling as low as US$40.
John Richels, president of the Devon Energy Corp, an international oil and gas company based in Oklahoma City, said US$150 a barrel was possible, but so was US$55.
"We have to make investments based on our outlook over a long period of time," he said. "It is tough."
Central to the question of where oil prices will go is the effect of high prices on the consumption and development of alternative fuels.
Large amounts of public and private investment are going into solar, wind and biofuel development, but so far they are making only a slight contribution to energy supplies. Scientific and engineering leaps, like developing the atomic bomb or sending a man to the moon, can be made relatively quickly, but they are still measured in years.
Until now, most economists have been surprised that the steady rise in oil prices -- from as low as US$11 less than a decade ago -- has not had a greater effect on US consumers. But with oil prices rising at an increasingly rapid rate over the last few months in conjunction with the housing market slump and credit squeeze, many economists wonder whether oil prices could tip the economy into a recession.
A recession, of course, would curb oil demand. That would push oil prices right back down again, or so the theory goes, as fewer consumers drive to the mall, companies produce and ship less and world trade slows.
"If we are slowing down, we will not be buying as much goods from China and services from India," said Addison Armstrong, director for market research at Tradition Energy, an energy broker that deals with banks and hedge funds.
"My forecast for 2008 is that crude prices will average US$75 a barrel, and that is based on a scenario of a slowing economy in the United States," he said.
But Armstrong and other experts cautioned that a protracted insurgency in Nigeria, a punishing hurricane season or other unpredictable events could take oil prices up.
So why are oil prices going up now? The military situation in Iraq is arguably improving, and Iraqi oil exports are beginning to flow again. Tensions with Iran have eased a bit. There are forecasts for a mild late winter in the US, which should help bolster oil and gasoline inventories going into the spring and summer driving season.
Many experts say the answer lies in the investment decisions of traders and hedge funds. With the markets in equities, housing, credit and currency shaky in the US, traders are betting on oil and other commodities as a perceived safe haven.
Phil Flynn, a vice president and market analyst with the Alaron Trading Corp in Chicago, said the recent interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve had underscored for traders the depths of the country's economic risks and led them to buy oil futures.
Flynn said he thought that oil prices were more likely to fall than rise, "because I think the factors that drove us to today are unlikely to repeat in 2008."
He added that he thinks the dollar will find a bottom this year and that the problems in housing are already priced into the markets.
But most experts say that if oil prices do go down, they will probably not go down very far or for very long.
Richels of Devon Energy said that consumers in Europe and Japan were not feeling the same pressure as Americans because their currencies have been strengthening and not weakening.
"There is still a lot of demand that is outside of the United States," Richels said. "There is increasing oil consumption, particularly in the developing nations, and oil is getting more difficult to find."
NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE, NEW YORK
What's Really Bothering Beijing?
By Gerrit van der Wees
Almost every day, Taiwan is feeling the heat of China's aggression: Beijing's military threat and intimidation, more than 1,000 missiles aimed its way, constant attempts to isolate it internationally and a failure to accept Taiwan as a friendly neighbor.
What is China fighting against? What is driving China's leaders in their obsession with Taiwan? When we go back in history, we see three main reasons.
One is the Chinese Civil War, which the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) fought against the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). This struggle was deeply ingrained in the minds of older leaders of the CCP, and still plays an important role in the thinking of the present leadership. But as the international power and influence of the KMT waned in the 1970s and 1980s, the old hostility was refocused on the new "threat": Taiwan's democracy.
While Taiwan considered its transition to democracy in the late 1980s and early 1990s a momentous achievement, the leaders of the PRC perceived it as a threat to the authoritarian system they had built in China.
If the Chinese had ideas similar to those of the Taiwanese, then the rule of the CCP would be finished.
China is thus not fighting Taiwan because the latter wants to remain separate: History shows that most Chinese leaders don't care much whether Taiwan is separate or not. It is an outlying place -- very much like the Northwest Territories for the US -- and not crucial to China's "center of civilization."
The real reason China is fighting Taiwan is because it represents a successful democracy right next door, undermining the CCP's authoritarian "stability."
The second reason that seems to be prevalent in Chinese thinking is to "right the wrongs" caused by two centuries of "humiliation"at the hands of Western countries.
This may have been a factor in the 19th century, after the Opium Wars, when Western states established enclaves along the Chinese coast, but the trials and tribulations of the 20th century were of China's own making: The Chinese Civil War, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were internal Chinese affairs with which the West had little to do.
The third reason for China's hardheaded attitude toward Taiwan is that it thinks Taiwan's close association with the US and the West stands in the way of China becoming a "great power."
The leaders in Beijing have set an ambitious course for China to become a "superpower" along the lines of the US: wielding economic and political influence and power across the globe.
For China's leaders, "possession" of Taiwan is a key element in their geostrategic competition with the US -- and to a lesser extent in their regional competition with Japan.
This is because of Taiwan's strategic location -- straddling the important sea lanes between Japan and Southeast Asia while keeping China from unfettered access to the deep oceans of the Pacific.
China's threats to Taiwan are thus not caused by Taiwan's efforts to seek its rightful place under the sun, but rather by geostrategic competition with the US. This argument is made eloquently in a recent book titled Why Taiwan? by Alan Wachman of Tufts University. As long as "Taiwan's people seek the dignity of sovereignty and the assurance that so long as they do no harm to the PRC, Beijing will regard the island with neighborly comity," Wachman writes.
He argues that if, on the other hand, one views the issue through the lens of Beijing's geostrategic ambitions, one might come to a very different conclusion. If it sees Taiwan as essential to its security and even more importantly as part of a broader geostrategic competition with the US and Japan, the chance of Beijing resorting to the use of force is much greater.
This has important implications for the US. Another US East Asia researcher, Don Rodgers, recently wrote: "In the United States, policymakers must be careful not to view increasing tensions between China and Taiwan as the outcome of a `trouble-making' government in Taiwan (as they seem far too inclined to do), but rather as one manifestation of an intensifying geostrategic competition between China and the US and Japan."
Let us hope that Washington pays heed.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor at the Washington-based Taiwan Communique.
Almost every day, Taiwan is feeling the heat of China's aggression: Beijing's military threat and intimidation, more than 1,000 missiles aimed its way, constant attempts to isolate it internationally and a failure to accept Taiwan as a friendly neighbor.
What is China fighting against? What is driving China's leaders in their obsession with Taiwan? When we go back in history, we see three main reasons.
One is the Chinese Civil War, which the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) fought against the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). This struggle was deeply ingrained in the minds of older leaders of the CCP, and still plays an important role in the thinking of the present leadership. But as the international power and influence of the KMT waned in the 1970s and 1980s, the old hostility was refocused on the new "threat": Taiwan's democracy.
While Taiwan considered its transition to democracy in the late 1980s and early 1990s a momentous achievement, the leaders of the PRC perceived it as a threat to the authoritarian system they had built in China.
If the Chinese had ideas similar to those of the Taiwanese, then the rule of the CCP would be finished.
China is thus not fighting Taiwan because the latter wants to remain separate: History shows that most Chinese leaders don't care much whether Taiwan is separate or not. It is an outlying place -- very much like the Northwest Territories for the US -- and not crucial to China's "center of civilization."
The real reason China is fighting Taiwan is because it represents a successful democracy right next door, undermining the CCP's authoritarian "stability."
The second reason that seems to be prevalent in Chinese thinking is to "right the wrongs" caused by two centuries of "humiliation"at the hands of Western countries.
This may have been a factor in the 19th century, after the Opium Wars, when Western states established enclaves along the Chinese coast, but the trials and tribulations of the 20th century were of China's own making: The Chinese Civil War, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were internal Chinese affairs with which the West had little to do.
The third reason for China's hardheaded attitude toward Taiwan is that it thinks Taiwan's close association with the US and the West stands in the way of China becoming a "great power."
The leaders in Beijing have set an ambitious course for China to become a "superpower" along the lines of the US: wielding economic and political influence and power across the globe.
For China's leaders, "possession" of Taiwan is a key element in their geostrategic competition with the US -- and to a lesser extent in their regional competition with Japan.
This is because of Taiwan's strategic location -- straddling the important sea lanes between Japan and Southeast Asia while keeping China from unfettered access to the deep oceans of the Pacific.
China's threats to Taiwan are thus not caused by Taiwan's efforts to seek its rightful place under the sun, but rather by geostrategic competition with the US. This argument is made eloquently in a recent book titled Why Taiwan? by Alan Wachman of Tufts University. As long as "Taiwan's people seek the dignity of sovereignty and the assurance that so long as they do no harm to the PRC, Beijing will regard the island with neighborly comity," Wachman writes.
He argues that if, on the other hand, one views the issue through the lens of Beijing's geostrategic ambitions, one might come to a very different conclusion. If it sees Taiwan as essential to its security and even more importantly as part of a broader geostrategic competition with the US and Japan, the chance of Beijing resorting to the use of force is much greater.
This has important implications for the US. Another US East Asia researcher, Don Rodgers, recently wrote: "In the United States, policymakers must be careful not to view increasing tensions between China and Taiwan as the outcome of a `trouble-making' government in Taiwan (as they seem far too inclined to do), but rather as one manifestation of an intensifying geostrategic competition between China and the US and Japan."
Let us hope that Washington pays heed.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor at the Washington-based Taiwan Communique.
2008年1月6日 星期日
2008年1月2日 星期三
How to Cash in on a Warming Planet
By Adam Aston
Set aside, for now, the really complex and costly financial implications of climate change. Ignore the tricky abstractions of carbon trading. Forget the worries over flooded cities and the ins and outs of renewable energy.
Instead, consider just a few everyday money-making ideas created by the warming of our planet. For example, oenophiles could short the stocks of vintners in drought-prone areas such as Australia or California and bet on upstarts in Canada and England, where new wineries are sprouting as temperatures rise. Or, since ski resorts are seeing less and less snow, it might make sense to buy and hold manufacturers of snowmakers.
Of course, the potential of climate-change investing goes far beyond mere curiosities. A growing number of advisers to big institutional investors and high-net-worth types are sizing up companies based on how likely they are to benefit from rising energy prices, stricter regulations, and changes to the natural world ranging from freshwater shortages to new disease patterns and more chaotic weather. Since public opinion is increasingly driving U.S. policymakers to act, analysts' climate predictions need not be perfectly prescient to pay off. "Perception drives valuations," says Edward M. Kerschner, chief investment strategist for Citi Global Wealth Management (C), who recently made public a list of some 90 "climate consequences companies" he believes could excel as the climate changes and limits on carbon emissions multiply.
If there's a whiff of familiarity to investing in climate change, that's because some of its key elements have already attracted attention. Pure-play renewable energy stocks, for example, make up a big slice of the new climate change offerings and have seen meteoric gains over the past year. The difference is that climate change strategists make their picks from a larger pool, including everything from small-cap alternative energy startups to globe-spanning conglomerates, as well as a few decidedly nongreen plays. Given the breadth of companies in this space, "there's significant opportunity for actively managed funds," says Michael Herbst, a mutual fund analyst at Morningstar (MORN).
HOT OPTIONS
Consider HSBC's (HBC) Global Climate Change Benchmark Index, which tracks 300 equities, spans 34 countries (11 of which are emerging markets), and includes small, medium, and big companies. Simulations of the 45 months prior to its September debut show the index would have beaten the Morgan Stanley (MS) Capital International (MSCI) global index by 70%. In November, HSBC launched a fund in Europe that focuses on a subset of about 60 companies from the index. A U.S. version, the GIF Climate Change Fund, is due by April.
Deutsche Bank's (DB) DWS Climate Change Fund beat HSBC to the American market last November. It mirrors the German DWS Klimawandel fund, which since its launch last February is up 10.4%. For DWS's U.S. offering, expect somewhat pricey expense ratios of 1.75% to 2.5% of assets.
For a lower-cost approach, stock pickers can follow the pros' logic and make their own calls. Luckily, evaluating equities on their potential to capitalize on climate change is easier than untangling the complexities of global warming. A useful approach is to split the opportunities into two broad groups, explains Mark Fulton, climate-change strategist at Deutsche Bank Asset Management: mitigation and adaptation.
The first basket includes products and services that slow the flow of greenhouse gases by using less energy or by substituting clean energy for fossil fuels. That's why so many renewables such as solar and wind show up in the new climate-change funds and indices.
As of September, for example, the top 10 holdings in DWS Climate Change Fund included nine that either produce carbon-free energy or help conserve fossil fuels: solar energy (LDK Solar (LDK), SolarWorld, Umicore, and First Solar), wind energy (Acciona Energia and Gamesa), electric efficiency specialists (ABB (ABB) and Emerson Electric (EMR)), and an electric vehicle maker, Tanfield Group.
Fulton's second category includes opportunities to help the world adapt to the effects of the changing climate. This group may offer hidden values in some more obscure sectors. DWS's fund, for example, owns Veolia Environment, a water-services specialist that can help parched regions adjust. Citi's Kerschner, likewise, predicts growth for Leighton Holdings, an Australian engineering contractor that is building a growing number of plants that make seawater drinkable.
SHADES OF GREEN
If anything, the greenest of investors may be put off by aspects of climate-change investing. Citi likes big nuclear plant operators such as Entergy (ETR) and Exelon (EXC), despite worries over their waste, since their reactors crank out huge volumes of juice with virtually no greenhouse gases. Fluor (FLR), a U.S. engineering construction giant, makes the cut since it's positioned to benefit from demand for new power plants, regardless of whether they're powered by clean gas, controversial nuclear, or even not-so-clean coal.
Many of the top picks among the adaptation plays are cheaper than mitigation stocks. Ormat Technologies (ORA), a leader in renewable geothermal energy, has a pricey p-e ratio of 41, based on 2008 earnings. But in the less glamorous auto sector, makers of mileage-boosting technologies may outsell competitors more reliant on gas guzzlers. By this logic, France's PSA Peugeot Citroën, which builds Europe's most fuel-thrifty fleet, stands to beat out U.S. rivals as global demand for eco-vehicles rises. Its p-e is just 9.
An upside to these broad climate-change funds is that they expose investors to plays of all sizes, in both developed and emerging markets. But tracking such a diverse portfolio requires unusually broad expertise in complex energy, technology, and cross-border markets, notes Angus McCrone, chief editor at New Energy Finance, which tracks green markets. Regulatory reversals can also dent returns. As U.S. lawmakers debated the recent energy bill this fall, renewable stocks were whipsawed on each rumor that beneficial tax credits would disappear or expand.
Set aside, for now, the really complex and costly financial implications of climate change. Ignore the tricky abstractions of carbon trading. Forget the worries over flooded cities and the ins and outs of renewable energy.
Instead, consider just a few everyday money-making ideas created by the warming of our planet. For example, oenophiles could short the stocks of vintners in drought-prone areas such as Australia or California and bet on upstarts in Canada and England, where new wineries are sprouting as temperatures rise. Or, since ski resorts are seeing less and less snow, it might make sense to buy and hold manufacturers of snowmakers.
Of course, the potential of climate-change investing goes far beyond mere curiosities. A growing number of advisers to big institutional investors and high-net-worth types are sizing up companies based on how likely they are to benefit from rising energy prices, stricter regulations, and changes to the natural world ranging from freshwater shortages to new disease patterns and more chaotic weather. Since public opinion is increasingly driving U.S. policymakers to act, analysts' climate predictions need not be perfectly prescient to pay off. "Perception drives valuations," says Edward M. Kerschner, chief investment strategist for Citi Global Wealth Management (C), who recently made public a list of some 90 "climate consequences companies" he believes could excel as the climate changes and limits on carbon emissions multiply.
If there's a whiff of familiarity to investing in climate change, that's because some of its key elements have already attracted attention. Pure-play renewable energy stocks, for example, make up a big slice of the new climate change offerings and have seen meteoric gains over the past year. The difference is that climate change strategists make their picks from a larger pool, including everything from small-cap alternative energy startups to globe-spanning conglomerates, as well as a few decidedly nongreen plays. Given the breadth of companies in this space, "there's significant opportunity for actively managed funds," says Michael Herbst, a mutual fund analyst at Morningstar (MORN).
HOT OPTIONS
Consider HSBC's (HBC) Global Climate Change Benchmark Index, which tracks 300 equities, spans 34 countries (11 of which are emerging markets), and includes small, medium, and big companies. Simulations of the 45 months prior to its September debut show the index would have beaten the Morgan Stanley (MS) Capital International (MSCI) global index by 70%. In November, HSBC launched a fund in Europe that focuses on a subset of about 60 companies from the index. A U.S. version, the GIF Climate Change Fund, is due by April.
Deutsche Bank's (DB) DWS Climate Change Fund beat HSBC to the American market last November. It mirrors the German DWS Klimawandel fund, which since its launch last February is up 10.4%. For DWS's U.S. offering, expect somewhat pricey expense ratios of 1.75% to 2.5% of assets.
For a lower-cost approach, stock pickers can follow the pros' logic and make their own calls. Luckily, evaluating equities on their potential to capitalize on climate change is easier than untangling the complexities of global warming. A useful approach is to split the opportunities into two broad groups, explains Mark Fulton, climate-change strategist at Deutsche Bank Asset Management: mitigation and adaptation.
The first basket includes products and services that slow the flow of greenhouse gases by using less energy or by substituting clean energy for fossil fuels. That's why so many renewables such as solar and wind show up in the new climate-change funds and indices.
As of September, for example, the top 10 holdings in DWS Climate Change Fund included nine that either produce carbon-free energy or help conserve fossil fuels: solar energy (LDK Solar (LDK), SolarWorld, Umicore, and First Solar), wind energy (Acciona Energia and Gamesa), electric efficiency specialists (ABB (ABB) and Emerson Electric (EMR)), and an electric vehicle maker, Tanfield Group.
Fulton's second category includes opportunities to help the world adapt to the effects of the changing climate. This group may offer hidden values in some more obscure sectors. DWS's fund, for example, owns Veolia Environment, a water-services specialist that can help parched regions adjust. Citi's Kerschner, likewise, predicts growth for Leighton Holdings, an Australian engineering contractor that is building a growing number of plants that make seawater drinkable.
SHADES OF GREEN
If anything, the greenest of investors may be put off by aspects of climate-change investing. Citi likes big nuclear plant operators such as Entergy (ETR) and Exelon (EXC), despite worries over their waste, since their reactors crank out huge volumes of juice with virtually no greenhouse gases. Fluor (FLR), a U.S. engineering construction giant, makes the cut since it's positioned to benefit from demand for new power plants, regardless of whether they're powered by clean gas, controversial nuclear, or even not-so-clean coal.
Many of the top picks among the adaptation plays are cheaper than mitigation stocks. Ormat Technologies (ORA), a leader in renewable geothermal energy, has a pricey p-e ratio of 41, based on 2008 earnings. But in the less glamorous auto sector, makers of mileage-boosting technologies may outsell competitors more reliant on gas guzzlers. By this logic, France's PSA Peugeot Citroën, which builds Europe's most fuel-thrifty fleet, stands to beat out U.S. rivals as global demand for eco-vehicles rises. Its p-e is just 9.
An upside to these broad climate-change funds is that they expose investors to plays of all sizes, in both developed and emerging markets. But tracking such a diverse portfolio requires unusually broad expertise in complex energy, technology, and cross-border markets, notes Angus McCrone, chief editor at New Energy Finance, which tracks green markets. Regulatory reversals can also dent returns. As U.S. lawmakers debated the recent energy bill this fall, renewable stocks were whipsawed on each rumor that beneficial tax credits would disappear or expand.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
