Quote of the week

“It won't surprise you to hear that I think moderation is important in the affairs of states,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said after meeting the president, Michel Suleiman, a former chief of the armed forces who stays above the political fray.

Ms. Clinton touched down in Lebanon on Sunday for a lightning visit to express support for this fragile country, six weeks before crucial parliamentary elections in which the Islamic militant group Hezbollah is expected to make significant gains.

“We want to see a strong, independent, free and sovereign Lebanon,” she said, noting that President Obama had sent Mr. Suleiman a letter expressing those sentiments. “This election will be, obviously, an important milestone.”

Obama invites Mideast leaders for talks on 'comprehensive peace'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama is launching an effort "to achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East," his spokesman said Tuesday.

Obama has invited key regional leaders to Washington in the coming weeks for consultations on the peace process, Robert Gibbs said.

Obama wants to meet separately with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Gibbs told reporters.

Dates for the visits are still being worked out, he said.

Obama met Tuesday with Jordan's King Abdullah II."

With each of them, the president will discuss ways the United States can strengthen and deepen our partnerships with them, as well as the steps all parties must take to help achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians and between Israel and the Arab states," Gibbs said.

The leadership of Hamas, considered by the United States and Israel to be a terrorist organization, is not being invited. The group, which also provides social services, won elections in the Palestinian territories in 2006, prompting stringent sanctions from the West.

After the election, skirmishes between Abbas' Fatah and Hamas escalated, ending with Hamas in charge in Gaza and the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in charge in the West Bank.

A six-month cease-fire between Hamas and Israel ended late last year and was followed by Israel's three-week incursion into Gaza. Israel said that operation was aimed at halting rocket and mortar fire on its southern towns and communities.

Despite a cease-fire called in January at the end of that fight, both Hamas rocket fire and Israeli airstrikes have continued.

Obama appointed a special Middle East envoy on his second full day in office -- former Sen. George Mitchell -- and dispatched him to the region within weeks.

Last week, during his third trip to the region since his appointment, Mitchell reiterated the U.S. desire to see a "two-state solution" in the Middle East, bringing speculation that the United States and Israel's new right-leaning government could be on a collision-course.

Netanyahu has indicated he wants serious negotiations with the Palestinians to continue, but he has not explicitly stated his support for Palestinian statehood.

Questions about the new Israeli government's commitment to a negotiated peace process came up when the nationalist politician and new Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman declared the Annapolis process "null and void." The Annapolis process, launched by the Bush administration, paved the way for the resumption of Israeli and Palestinian talks after they stopped earlier in the decade.

The United States has been making on-again, off-again forays into solving the Middle East crisis for decades.

Former President Bush made a push late in his term, convening a peace conference at Annapolis, near Washington, at the end of 2007."

The parties have said they are going to make efforts to conclude this during the president's term. That's what we will try and do," then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in November 2007, a week before the conference.

Bill Clinton hammered away at the problem as president in the 1990s, bringing together Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, King Hussein of Jordan, and Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel at Camp David in the last year of his presidency. They failed to reach a deal.

Arafat and Hussein have since died. Barak is defense minister under Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in a right-leaning government.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, a hardliner, said last week the "traditional approach" to Middle East peacemaking "has so far brought neither results nor solutions" and that the "diplomatic process has reached a dead end," according to a press release from his ministry.

Comment on Middle East

The Middle East affair is now the most relative key to the world peace. Since President Obama assumed, he tries to make efforts on peacekeeping on Middle East and keep releasing the good intentions. He believes that his special background may be part of useful factor. Recently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Iraq unawares. And President Obama has also dispatched the special envoy---the former Sen. George Mitchell as soon as he assumed.

As we can see, what American do is deepen and strengthen the ties between the U.S. and the Middle East countries, especially those important troublemakers. But the most troublesome power, Hamas, was not invited. It seems like Obama administration just give the world a show without the real actions. Take Palestine for example, the radical Hamas has beaten Fatah in 2006 and became the largest party in the Parliament.

As the official representation of Palestine, Fatah and Israel have acknowledged each others in 1993. However, Hamas is now the most powerful party in the Parliament, and Hamas has the different position to Fatah on Israeli issues. Hamas take every kind of violent manners in order to sweep all the Fatahs in Gaza Strip and wipe out Israel. I believe the situation in the Middle East is going to be worse without negotiating with Hamas.

I think it's very difficult to make consensus with Hamas because it's a religious organization. They believe in Allah, protect their homeland by life. They consider it's very honor to die for their God, they are born to be the warriors. Since the death of Yasser Arafat, the inner situation of Palestine is getting more chaotic. It's no longer the regional affaire but the worldwide. The power countries have to show their sincerity and also other countries in the region. However, that relates to religious affair, of course it will be much more difficult to make consensus or even solve it. The lefty Obama administration and right-leaning Israeli government, could they be on a collision-course on those common issues? Let's wait and see.

ECFA: Focus on issues, not name

By Chuang Yih-chyi 莊奕琦
Wednesday, Mar 11, 2009, Page 8

The world economy has grown rapidly since globalization started spreading in the mid-1980s. Between 1986 and 2007, the world economy expanded by an average of 3.59 percent, with average growth in exports reaching a high 11.45 percent. As of December last year, there were 230 regional trade arrangements around the globe registered with the WTO, of which 205 — or nearly 90 percent — were established after 1990.

Regional groupings in East Asia were originally driven by market integration; however, after the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, East Asian nations started to move toward institution-led integration. For example, the ASEAN Plus Three (China, Japan and South Korea) was set up to strengthen the East Asian economies and encourage their steady development.

The ruling and opposition parties in Taiwan are now arguing over whether an institution-led agreement should be signed between Taiwan and China. One bone of contention was the pact proposed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), called the comprehensive economic cooperation agreement or CECA (before the government revised it to economic cooperation framework agreement), was too similar in name to China's Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement, or CEPA, with Hong Kong and Macau.

Viewed realistically and in terms of Taiwan's future development, there is a definite necessity for the signing of an institution-led agreement on trade between Taiwan and China.

Official statistics show that from 1991 to last October, Taiwan had invested a total of US$73.8 billion in China, with cumulative trade reaching as much as US$752.4 billion. However, not one single official investment guarantee or trade agreement has been signed between Taiwan and China. This makes Taiwanese trade with China risky as it lacks any safeguards. It also goes against the spirit of the WTO and is potentially damaging to the Taiwanese economy.

An institution-led agreement on trade between Taiwan and China should be signed under the WTO framework. This is the only way to improve bilateral relations between Taiwan and China and promote multilateral relations with other East Asian nations. With improved multilateral relations, the presence and placement of Taiwanese businesses around the globe, as well as their international competitiveness, would be greatly enhanced. We cannot afford to sacrifice long-term multilateral benefits at the expense of short-term benefits that may come from over-emphasizing a special bilateral cooperative relationship between Taiwan and China.

The normalization and institutionalization of trade between Taiwan and China would be helpful to Taiwan’s internationalization and would also help stop Taiwan from being marginalized. The US and ASEAN have already made their stance clear by saying they wanted Taiwan to sign a trade agreement with China first before they would consider signing free trade agreements with Taiwan.

We should bear this in mind because other nations may harbor the same expectations toward Taiwan. If Taiwan were marginalized while other countries enjoy preferential treatment such as zero tariffs as a result of the agreements they ratified with other nations, Taiwanese manufacturers would lose their international competitiveness and would have to either close down or move all of their business operations to China. The result of this would be a Taiwan even more reliant on China economically and a government with even more China-leaning policies.

Institution-led negotiations carried out under the WTO framework could incorporate exclusion clauses to provide controls and restraints where necessary. This would help protect weaker industries such as agriculture and select service industries, as well as reduce the damage to such industries after an economic opening. Before any discussion with other nations is conducted, a consensus on critical issues should first be formed in Taiwan. Issues such as which local markets would be opened up and how those who may suffer as a result of the market opening would be compensated should be clearly defined before any action is taken. This would help erase public doubt and ease worries about the opening.

The institutionalization of trade does not equate to the institutionalization of politics. Economies are influenced by markets, while politics is shaped by democratic process. The EU is a clear example of this. Taiwan is an independent and sovereign democratic nation where the people have the final say.

In conclusion, to promote internationalization while protecting Taiwanese investment and trade with China and avoid Taiwan being marginalized, Taipei and Beijing should carry out discussions on institution-led agreements and ratify them as soon as possible. The reasons for doing so are obvious. The name of the agreement is not important as long as its content is in line with the spirit and content of the free trade agreements under the WTO framework.

The ruling and opposition parties should stop wasting their energy squabbling over what the agreement should be called and start focusing on openly discussing the framework and details of a cross-strait trade agreement that would benefit and promote Taiwanese welfare.

Comment on ECFA

The ruling and opposition party have already argued the topic which about if we should sign ECFA or not for a long time. President Ma Ying-Jiou insists that's a part of his politics, the government must do it. But the opposition claims that might harm the sovereignty of Taiwan. In the beginning, they're arguing about the name of the pact. China has signed CEPA with Hong Kong and Macau in 2003, the opposition thinks we cannot compare with HK and Macau because they are part of China. In my point of view, they are right; we should emphasize our sovereignty in any negotiations. But in fact, the government never mentions about signing CEPA. They talked about CECA. In order to mistake people, the name has been changed to "ECFA."

I think it's necessary to sign the pact with China as soon as possible. Of course, it should be under the WTO framework and the equal position. The East Asia FTA will be finished in 2010, if Taiwan keep staying outside and do not clear the tariff obstacles of trade between other Asian countries, Taiwan will be marginalized. The products of those countries can circulate without any restraint, so that Taiwan might lose the competitiveness. Under the strong pressure of China, it's almost impossible to sign any FTA with other countries. The U.S. and ASEAN have already made their stance clearly that they won't sign any FTA with Taiwan unless Taiwan has signed with China. Also, the total trade between Taiwan and China has increased rapidly, but there's no pact to protect. It's really risky for the welfare. We may not only lose the international competitiveness but also our inner market.

Although some industries may lost their benefits, but it's sure to lost some benefits when signing the FTA. But, it'll never be sovereignty. If the advantages are much more than the disadvantages, why keep it out? President Ma said we'll not open the circulation of Chinese labors and agriculture products. But it is against the "National Treatment" of WTO. How to lowest the risk is the most important goal before signing ECFA.

We should start the official communication with China, it's necessary. The opposition is better to give up the bias of China. Whenever they mention about China, they turn things down in reflectivity, that's too ideological. Anyway, it's better to discuss about economy in economic way, not politics. It conforms just to the principles of cross-strait economic normalization.

Quote of the week

“We will surely win,” the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, said during his recent birthday party, according to the March 28 edition of Rodong Sinmun, Pyongyang's main state-run newspaper. Rodong then explained Mr. Kim's tactic: “If our sworn enemies come at us with a dagger, he brandishes a sword. If they train a rifle at us, he responds with a cannon.”

Quote of the week

The U.S. State Department spokesman Robert Wood said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been in touch with representatives of the four other permanent five nations and would make more calls on Monday.

"We're going to continue to go forward in discussions with our partners in the council to see and to seek a strong, coordinated and effective response," Wood said.

Susan Rice, in her CNN interview, said, "We believe the most appropriate form for that response to take would be a Security Council resolution with some teeth in it.

"We will continue to work in that direction, but we have also to look at our bilateral mechanisms and further steps." The goal, she said, is "a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula."