Sun, Oct 22, 2000 page8

• Editorial: Who shall go to Brunei?

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  So much for our hopes of even a little progress for Taiwan in being allowed equal representation with other member countries at the APEC summit. Some days ago we were deploring the fact that Taiwan was still not allowed to send its head of state to the annual leaders' summit, this year to be held in Brunei. However, some progress toward obtaining equal representation appeared to have been made in that, for the first time, Taiwan was able to send an official of the rank of deputy premier, which on previous occasions had been vetoed by Beijing. It now appears that this was an oversight on Brunei's part, accepting Lai In-jaw (賴英照) as Taiwan's representative without paying enough attention to Lai's rank within the government and past protocol in deciding Taiwan's representation.

  It is tempting to blast Brunei for cravenly caving in to Beijing's pressure to rescind the invitation to Lai, as was announced yesterday. Brunei authorities have let it be known that China threatened that its leader Jiang Zemin (江澤民) might not attend the summit if Lai showed up. How one wishes that Brunei had had the courage to say that whether Jiang turned up or not was entirely up to him but it had no intention of rescinding an invitation once granted and accepted. But we can hardly expect Brunei to stand up to Beijing when, in the matter of Taiwan's representation, countries such as the US, Canada and Australia have proved so spineless.

  Much of the embarrassment and bitterness surrounding Taiwan's position at these APEC leadership summits is a result of the nature of the summits themselves. They are not a formal part of the APEC setup -- in which equality of representation is guaranteed under the APEC's founding protocols -- but rather a fringe event that has come to dominate the annual meetings themselves. The leaders' summit is really a get-together by personal invitation -- and it is, of course, up to the host country as to who is invited. There are no rules about this within APEC itself, which is why the guest list is so vulnerable to China's pressure.

  So who should go? Two other candidates were being considered before Lai was chosen. One of them was Jeffrey Koo (辜濂松), the chairman of Chinatrust Commercial Bank who the previous government used as an "ambassador at large." This would of course be the safe choice, stressing continuity and stability. But for the same reason we think it would be a bad choice. Koo is so identified with the old KMT government and has enjoyed such high international visibility in the past that to send him as Taiwan's representative suggests that the change of government was something of a formality, that the same old cronies are still in charge. Of course, many critics of this so-far utterly disappointing government will say that this is no more than the truth. But perhaps the ineffectualness of the DPP government in shaking up the nation's overwhelmingly KMT establishment is perhaps not something on which international attention should be focused.

  Which brings us to a second, far superior possibility, namely Peng Ming-min (彭明敏), a senior advisor to the president known as "the godfather of Taiwan independence." What we like about Peng is that behind his scholarly exterior is an outspoken attack dog whose ability to puncture the bubble of hypocrisy and lies surrounding fellow APEC members' treatment of Taiwan and kowtowing to China is probably second to none. The choice of Peng would do two useful things; it would be both a rebuke for China, and it would also guarantee that Taiwan would be represented for once by an uncompromising champion of its interests, something that cannot be said of previous representatives.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    First person arrested as Danjiang Bridge opens

  • 2

    TSMC shares stumble on report, but losses minor

  • 3

    Police identify man who engaged in indecency at park

  • 4

    TSMC expects global chip revenue to hit US$1.5tn

  • 5

    Trump weighs Taiwan arms package