Letters

It is easy for smug newspaper editors to play armchair president and slam Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) recent statement that he would not change the constitution to reflect the "two-states" theory or call a referendum on independence ("Chen gives in on `two states,'" Jan. 31, Page 8 ). But, the editorial showed a lack of understanding of modern international politics and seems to be mired in the rose-colored views that the DPP is finally realizing don't work. First, to suggest that Chen finds acceptable some level of force as tolerable before giving in to China shrewdly misrepresents what he said. No president would accept that and you know it. The "two states" theory that the newspaper loves so much would only make a PRC attack easier to rationalize. And, based on Washington's response to it last year, it would make it easier for the international community to not want to get involved. Chen's move made good strategic and political sense: the military option will always be in Beijing's hand to use, regardless of what Taiwan does, but now Taiwan cannot be painted as the trouble-making bad guy that asked for it. "Slamming the door" on the one-China policy is a quaint idea on the planet Taipei Times, but here on earth I'll take the imperfect status-quo over war any day. On top of it, two-thirds of Taiwan's population does not support declaring independence and now that Taiwan is a democracy these popular sentiments must form the base of any candidate's platform. Chen has not, as your newspaper argued, "capitulated" to Beijing. Rather, he has strengthened and stabilized the status-quo, which in turn strengthens the best hand Taiwan has to play: time. In fifty years, most will agree that Taiwan's democratic institutions will be more stable, its economy more rational and its social system more cohesive. To say the same about China is dubious and Chen knows that Taiwan's best strategy is to wait and watch, not start wars. Brian Shea
Taipei Discrimination is racist As a longtime "resident foreigner" of Japan and activist in discrimination cases in my adopted country, I would like to comment on Gregory Clark's recent commentary ("Is Japan racist towards foreigners? No, says a Westerner," Jan. 22, p. 9). I would like to focus on the facts of the two referenced discrimination cases. First, Clark's passing depiction of the Hamamatsu case leaves out important informa-tion. The Japanese jeweler forcefully evicted the plaintiff only because she was a window-shopping Brazilian. In 1999, Japan's courts ruled, via the UN Convention on Racial Discrimination (adopted by Japan in 1996), that exclusion based solely on nationality was illegal, necessitating US$15,000 compensation. If foreign critics in Japan are unduly bashing the shopkeeper,they are in good domestic and international company. Second, the Hokkadio bathhouse case, where according to Clark a manager sought to keep out visiting Russian seamen, is another misrepresentation. Not one but three bathhouses in the Hokkadio area have had exclusionary policies for over six years. And not only for Russians. Their front-door signs proclaim "Japanese only," meaning all foreigners, technically including Japan-born Chinese and Koreans, are prohibited from using the facilities. Why should the actions of the few be applied to everyone of a different nationality? After our organization brought this up in the media and with nationwide authorities, one bathhouse repealed its shut-door policy. The remaining two, despite personal visits and entreaties to the management, still bar me (a permanent resident of Japan, with land and a Japanese wife and children) and my Caucasian friends from bathing with my own children. The fact is these policies are abusable. On one of our visits, managers permitted entry to a Chinese friend, who looks Japanese, until she revealed her nationality and was evicted. I expect nothing different when my Japanese naturalization papers come through or my Western-looking children grow up. Thus this exclusion has the element of racial discrimination, which Clark never discusses. That is a shame. Despite four years of signatory status, Japan still has no laws forbidding discrimination by race or nationality. Our organization on Jan. 13 proposed anti-discrimination ordinances (the first ever in Japan) to the Otaru city government in Hokkaido, as is our right as residents. Clark might decry this as another case of foreigners causing problems, but if left unresolved, other industries may (and do) enforce exclusionary policies to their own profit. How, then, are we to live in Japan when our money may be voided by the color of our skin or the country on our passport? Should not Clark, instead of reporting inaccuracies, justifying prejudice through cultural canards and pointing fingers at victims for seeking improvements, help eliminate the discrimination that affects him as well? Dave Aldwinckle
Sapporo, Japan