Editorial: Threats only isolate China's leaders

Although President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) inauguration speech sought to address issues from all sides and to appeal for a consensus among the majority in Taiwan and concerned members of the international community, a speech to please everyone was an impossibility. Given the varied controversies surrounding cross-strait relations, it will be an achievement if the speech allays internal disputes and dispels the international community's fear of an outright confrontation. As for China's reaction, Taiwan only needs to observe but not fret, since China will never be satisfied unless Taiwan shows the white flag.

Yesterday, Zhang Mingqing (張銘清), spokesman of the Taiwan Affairs Office of China's State Council, made an announcement parroting China's May 17 statement. The old tactic of saber-rattling failed to register a response. Taiwan's lukewarm reaction to Zhang's announcement shows the flagging effect of China's intimidation. Compared with the hard words of the May 17 statement that prompted the TAIEX to plunge by 294 points, Zhang's announcement only caused the TAIEX to slip 22 points. During Zhang's press conference, Taiwan's stock market even rebounded after negative factors drained away. Apparently Taiwan is growing immune to China's threats. China's May 17 statement was only able to escalate cross-strait tensions because China had kept a low profile during the presidential election to keep from repeating its mistake of creating a pro-Chen backlash in the 2000 presidential election.

China obtained a copy of the speech via the US and rushed to announce its position prior to Chen's inauguration. China's two reactions in a week indicate it is gravely concerned with the international response to the speech.

Chen set goals: to calm the electorate at home, to relieve the anxious US and the international community, and to deprive China of any excuse to use force against Taiwan.

Some in Taiwan criticized Chen for con-ceding too much regarding the cross-strait relationship in his speech, as he promised that changes to the Constitution would not touch on issues of the country's national flag, title or sovereignty. He also approached the topic of constitutional reform in terms of "re-engineering" rather than as writing a new Constitution. Despite this complaint, the speech was well-received by the public.

Chen's speech was better received by the international community. It was acclaimed as "responsible and constructive" by the US State Department and viewed positively by other governments. Compared with the international response to Chen's speech, Beijing's comment appears jarring. Its failure to influence international opinion forced it to make another statement.

Yet as the US said on May 17, China's military threat is unnecessary. What Zhang said over the weekend was a mere reiteration of intimidation, which was neither positive nor constructive for cross-strait dialogue. China's decision to make the second statement was simply another mistake.

As Taiwan offers the olive branch of peace and China rattles its saber, the international community can easily tell which side shows flexibility and aspirations for peace, and which side is the troublemaker and source of cross-strait tension. Although power and influence define a country's role in the global arena, the capacity to differentiate right and wrong cannot be ignored. It is easy to tell who is right and who is wrong in the cross-strait relationship from the statements of all sides.