MAC Chairman Su Chi
at the July 12, 1999 Press Conference
Questions and Answers:
TAIPEI REBUTS BEIJING'S "one-China Principle"
Q. Does your statement just now mean an end to the government's long-standing "one China" policy? Does it also mean that the Guidelines for National Unification is history now?
A. I am saying that we are disappointed with Beijing¡|s ¡§one-China principle¡¨. In our view, the current cross-strait tensions stem primarily from Mainland China's failure to face the reality between the two sides. When we adopted the ¡]two equal political entities under¡^ ¡§one China¡¨ policy (in the Guidelines for National Unification) in 1991, we had some expectations for the development of cross-strait relations. It was a friendly adjustment from the previous "no co-existence stance" in an effort to end the hostility and meaningless struggles across the Taiwan Straits. Therefore, we took the initiative to make unilateral adjustments for the purposes of peace. In addition to announcements, we have made concrete changes in laws and policies.
For the past eight or nine years since then, the Mainland has responded with no goodwill, but hostility. Take the issue of so called "one China" as an example. This should not be purely a matter of unification vs. independence. Regarding the issue of illegal immigrants, an increasing number of Mainland illegal immigrants have found their way into Taiwan. This is because the Mainland considers Taiwan one of its provinces, therefore, Mainland authorities do not punish these stowaways. The stowaway issue is a non-issue for the Mainland side.
Mainland China's ¡§one-China principle¡¨ is not only a slogan; it is a policy implemented to every details (in cross-strait relations). Such a practice caused enormous harm to the cross-strait exchanges and our country, not to mention the harm brought by Mainland China's diplomatic suppression and military threat against us.
While we continue to show our goodwill, Mainland China continues to tighten its ¡§one-China principle¡¨. Therefore, it is unnecessary for us to stick to our previous position. We shall clearly defined the equal footing in order to usher in better cross-strait relations toward the next century.
TO SET THE STAGE FOR KOO-WANG MEETING
Q. By such a definition of "state-to-state relationship", do we mean to pave the way for political negotiations between the two sides? In a statement in Hong Kong today, Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Vice Chairman Tang Shubei lodged a strong criticism of the "two states" statement. Please comment on that.
A. I shall refrain from making any immediate comment on Tang's criticism. To answer your first question, President Lee's statement has a short-term goal -- to set the stage for the upcoming Koo-Wang meeting. This could help to produce a more constructive and meaningful dialogue in the meeting. In the long term, he hopes to introduce a more effective mechanism for cross-strait relations in the 21st century, to set cross-strait relations on the foundation of political and legal equality in order to handle the cross-strait relationship more effectively.
POLICY-MAKING PROCESS: THOROUGH
Q. Please explain the entire policy-making process.
A. The policy-making process involved a task force doing research on the subject for a period of time, which consisted of heads of MAC, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) and other agencies-in-charge. After studying for a period of time, we envision that Mainland China's "one-China principle" will become more inclusive that can squeeze every international space of ours. In addition, Mainland China has never relaxed its suppression of our diplomacy. We therefore, do not think that cross-strait relations could advance further. Based on goodwill, we believe that the two sides have to come down to the reality of state-to-state relations. It is most pragmatic to develop cross-strait relations on the ¡§state-to-state¡¨ basis in the next century.
NO REVISION FOR LEGAL DOCUMENTS
Q. Will the government make legal revisions in line with the clearer definition of cross-strait relations? Since the National Assembly will soon convene meetings for constitutional amendments, will the constitution be amended accordingly to reorient cross-strait relations?
A. I don't have the authority to answer this question. But the wording in the Guidelines for National Unification and the president¡|s announcement are of the same spirit. As for any change in the constitution, relevant agencies-in-charge will make the decision. I am not in the position to comment on that.
Q. You just returned from the United States. Do you know if the U.S. side had been informed before President Lee made the statements?
A. No.
CONTINUITY OF POLICY
Q. The policy has been changed from the previous statement that the two sides are "two equal political entities" to the present statement that the two sides are of a "special state-to-state relationship." How can the government justify in terms of policy consistency? Also, President Lee proposed such a major change to the Mainland policy in less than one year before he completes his term. Does he intend to set the stage for the upcoming presidential election and for the future leadership?
A. I mentioned the principles of pragmatism, continuity and initiative. Continuity refers to the fact that the ROC has been a sovereign state since 1912, without any interruption. We were there even after the Chinese communists established the PRC in 1949, and are still in good condition. This is a reality.
In the Guidelines for National Unification promulgated in 1991, we used the words "political entities" to describe cross-strait relations in order to show our goodwill and endeavors for advancing cross-strait relations. We hope the Mainland can appreciate what we did by treating the two sides as two political entities as well. We hope to untie the Gordian knot of "no co-existence" of the two sides.
For the past nine years, however, Mainland China refused to abandon the "no co-existence" stance. It continued to apply its ¡§one-China principle¡¨ to diplomatic and military spheres and even to the minor issue of illegal immigrants. After the transfer of Hong Kong sovereignty (in 1997), its "one-China principle" has had even wider applications. In view of this, our government has to adopt a clear attitude and orientation for cross-strait relations. We did this for realistic purposes. We simply want to come down to the reality of cross-strait relations. This is not related to the presidential election.
PRC REACTIONS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED
Q. Tang accused President Lee and the SEF person-in-charge of devastating cross-strait relations. Why is there no response from our side?
A. We are not evading making a response. We already explained our positions. Basically, we heard Mainland China's every criticism, and we are used to their critical attitudes. Frankly speaking, Mainland China should think more before making any judgement or statement, and not just jump to a rash conclusion. We are sincere and have good will telling the truth to construct cross-strait relations based on reality. With the two sides on equal footing, cross-strait relations may advance further, and everything can be put on the negotiation table, including political talks.
THE TIMING ISSUE
Q. Please explain the factors behind the timing of this announcement? Was there any specific reason to choose the occasion for making this announcement?
A. I have just mentioned that there are two elements -- the short-term and long-term considerations. The German Model demonstrates that East Germany and West Germany coexisted in the international community and engaged in dialogue, which did not impede their unification. There is no need for Mainland China to dread such a development. If the two sides take a friendly attitude toward the special state-to-state relations and pursue an equal and normal relationship on this basis, cross-strait relations may still progress in the positive direction.
Q. What will the world interpret President Lee's definition? Will this be interpreted as two countries?
A. We will encounter problems about terminology more often than not in the future. I do not attempt to answer that one by one. You will notice that later.
¡§SPECIAL STATE-TO-STATE RELATIONSHIP¡¨
Q. You mentioned that the "German model" is "one country, two states" in English. How does the government define President Lee¡|s declaration in English?
A. "State-to-state relations," "inter-state relations", or "two states in one nation." "State" means a country in international law. For example, the German Model referred to "two German States in one nation." Now, the cross-strait relations are characterized as "special inter-state relations" or "special state-to-state relations."
CROSS-STRAIT DIALOGUE ON THE ISSUE
Q. Will this policy be embodied in the cross-strait negotiations? Will the government stick to the state-to-state framework to handle all issues and agreements, be they practical or political? Will the previous structure, under which the three agreements on practical issues were signed, be adjusted, since the two sides used to avoid references to "state" or "nation"?
A. We can discuss any issues (with Mainland China) as soon as we are on equal footing. This position remains the same. Any issue beneficial to the people's rights and interests and national unification can be discussed. But our side would like to first resolve low-level political issues. After these issues are resolved, mutual trust can easily develop and the two sides may move to high-level political issues.
Regarding the high-level political issues, Mainland China refers to its ¡§one-China principle¡¨, to be followed in addressing all issues, such as terminating the hostile situation or having political consultations. So, Mainland China has set a precondition for the high-level political negotiations that "you are part of my area," "you are my local government," and "you should talk with me in such a capacity."
Please note the statements made by Mr. Tang of ARATS and the Central Taiwan Affairs Office of the Chinese Communist Party. They all mentioned that "China has sovereignty over Taiwan". They define "one China" in such a way that "Taiwan belongs to Mainland China." Under this condition, if we still enter into political negotiations with Mainland China, we will fall into their entrapment. I do not think any of the 22 million Taiwan people are willing to do so.
We are willing to, and do not fear to, enter into negotiations, but we are not willing to talk on an unequal position. Once equal, we are willing to talk about anything. There is nothing that can not be talked about. Results from the talks will be examined by the general public. We cannot accept that right from the start, across the negotiation table, we are sitting on a low stool, and they are in a high chair. We simply cannot do that.
TAIPEI¡|S MAINLAND POLICY UNCHANGED
Q. In his attack against President Lee and SEF Chairman Koo Cheng-fu, Mr. Tang used stronger and harsher words than those that were used in 1996 during the Taiwan Strait crisis. Does this mean the Koo-Wang meeting will be aborted? How will you evaluate future cross-strait relations after President Lee's announcement?
A. We have not changed our Mainland policy and we still welcome cross-strait exchanges and dialogue as well as ARATS Chairman Wang Daohan's visit to Taiwan. We have adopted the new position, whose immediate goal is to set the stage for the Koo-Wang meeting and hope to generate a more constructive and meaningful dialogue. We do not hope to see any change to the (schedule of) the Koo-Wang meeting this fall. I believe the Mainland will make a wise decision.
WHY ¡§SPECIAL STATE-TO-STATE RELATIONSHIP¡¨?
Q. Can you explain the difference between the "special state-to-state relations" and "an interim two-China policy leading to one China," which was proposed by Chiang Pin-kung, Chairman of the Council for Economic Planning and Development, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit six years ago? Are we still approaching toward "one China"? Are the state-to-state relations only for an interim stage?
A. Chiang made the remarks to rebut the PRC Vice Premier Qian Qichen's statements. Since 1991, the government's policy has been oriented toward treating the two sides as political entities. We did this for the purpose of goodwill that the two sides should not negate each other as a political entity. We never forced the Mainland to recognize the ROC, so Mainland China should reciprocate accordingly. But Qian, in an international occasion, downgraded the ROC as a local government, which Mr. Chiang had to rebut.
But now, we just want to say that we have been utterly disappointed by the PRC¡|s "one-China principle" over the past eight years. The "one-China principle" has been distorted by Mainland China to be a yoke on our neck, and is continuously being tightened, and applied ubiquitously. We don't want this to continue to the next century. We hope to break the deadlock and clearly define cross-strait relations.
President Lee had made it clear during the interview with Deutsche Welle that the unification of China rests with the (harmonization of the) system. Unification will be achieved when the Mainland introduces democracy, which is our consistent policy for unification. But before that day, we cannot keep saying that the two sides are two "political entities", while the Mainland continues to repress us by means of its "one-China principle". They sometimes jeer at us for making the "one China" issue a struggle of unification vs. independence within our own country.
The statement that "there is one China and Taiwan is part of China" in Chinese has completely different connotation from that in English. The English way of putting it has a serious semantic trap. When we say "there is one China," we mean that there will be one China in the future, and this statement does not imply a present-day reality. Currently, there are two different governments, and two different states. "One China" will be meaningful in the future.
However, in English translation, phrases such as "there ¡¥is¡| only one China" and "Taiwan ¡¥is¡| part of China" mislead people into believing that "China" refers to the present-day Chinese Mainland government. This could confuse many to think that "Taiwan is part of the PRC." There are two semantic trap concerning the use of present tense in English and the word "China."
Statements such as "there is only one China, and Taiwan is part of China" sound alright. But when Mainland China manipulates this in the international community, it immediately results in a yoke being placed on our neck.
In letters from Mainland China to other nations, the PRC says that countries in the world recognize that there is only "one China", even the Taiwan authority says so. The Mainland authorities manipulated our friendly support of the eventual "one China" to mean that we subscribe to the notion that "Taiwan is part of the PRC". Mainland China would then jump into a statement that even Taiwan has admitted that, so no diplomatic relations with Taiwan are permitted.
The "one China" statement, which we agreed with based upon our good will, turned into to be a weapon to suppress us diplomatically in the international community and squeeze the cross-strait relations. Therefore, we have to dismiss the myth about PRC¡|s "one China," because it has been utilized by the Mainland to our disadvantage. If we want to normalize cross-strait relations, the myth must be left behind. Still, we express our goodwill to the Mainland and we are willing to conduct a dialogue. Our long-term goal of unification after Mainland China becomes democratic remains unchanged. But we are not willing to stand unequally for an indefinite period of time.
Q. Since the government already left the "one China" myth behind, will you still accept Mainland China¡|s position to conduct a cross-strait dialogue under the "one-China principle"?
A. Our position and statements make clear that the two sides have special state-to-state relations. If the Mainland insists on its "one-China principle", it can foresee our reaction.
A TWO-CHINA POLICY?
Q. How would you react if someone said that the government is pursuing a "two-China" policy? You just explained the semantic trap of "one China." Since you are switching to "special state-to-state relations," what will you do if other countries still maintain a "one China" policy?
A. We will use special state-to-state relations in the international community. "Special" would underscore that, as opposed to other international relations, cross-strait relations would mean that the two belong to the same race and share the same culture. As long as Mainland China can recognize this, and treat us as an equal party with good will, cross-strait relations could even draw closer and friendlier than other bilateral relations.
As for "two Chinas", "one China, one Taiwan", and the like, we do not need to be confined to the old models. There are too many such terms, and neither side can reflect the special state-to-state relations I mentioned.
DIALOGUE ON EQUAL FOOTING
Q. You said that both sides should conduct a dialogue on equal footing. Does this mean that cross-strait political negotiations should be on the basis of state-to-state relations?
A. Certainly.
Q. You said that the clear definition is for the upcoming Koo-Wang Meeting. Do you mean that this issue should be on the agenda for the Koo-Wang meeting?
A. This cannot be avoided if the Mainland mentions its "one-China principle". If cross-strait relations can be defined as "special state-to-state relations", the cross-strait agenda could be very inclusive. There will be almost no problem to talk about ending hostile relations. The key point is to take off the PRC¡|s "one China" yoke that has been imposed on us.
Q. What shall other countries or institutions do to adjust their policies toward Taiwan and the Mainland?
A. I can not predict or encourage other countries to adopt any polices. But I would like to stress that our policy was made in view of the reality and out of goodwill. Under this clear definition, cross-strait negotiations and exchanges can enjoy wider space and better development, instead of being limited to the present framework. There is enormous potential. Further, if the two sides can build on this basis to conduct a dialogue or construct better relations, this will benefit other countries in the world.
IRRELEVANT TO THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
Q. Is this new policy related to the presidential election next year?
A. To my understanding, it is not related to the election. We have two basic motives. First, we hope to allow the Koo-Wang meeting to be more productive. Second, we desire to construct a more effective mechanism to handle cross-strait relations in the long term.
TO EXPAND OUR INTERNATIONAL HORIZON
Q. You said that the government tried to use the definition of "political entities" but failed, so you changed to a new model. Did you ever think that this move might lead to Mainland's threats against us?
A. I can not speak for Mainland authorities on whether they will accept this model or not. But I hope Mainland China can face the issue pragmatically. It is a plain fact that the ROC exists, which has been refuted by the Mainland. According to the Mainland's mindset, the ROC was annihilated in 1949, and all of its rationales are premised on this thesis. But the truth is that the ROC has not been disappeared, but exists in good condition. In order to improve cross-strait relations, Mainland China should face this reality, and so shall the world. The government will closely observe the Mainland's reactions.
Q. At present, the majority of the international community has accepted the "one-China principle". How will the government make the international community realize the ROC's new position? What will be the benefit of having this new position for Taiwan in terms of exploring international space?
A. I believe this position will help us in exploring a new international horizon, and help others to increase their understanding of us. When we use terms like "political entity", not many people understand it. Our proposal of "political entity" was based on goodwill with the expectation of ending the "no co-existence period", and that was the reason why we had designed such an ambiguous concept for the two sides to accommodate each other. But in the following eight or nine years, we found that Mainland China had no plan to give us any existing space but trampled all over our goodwill. So the government decided to try new means, and our intention is still out of goodwill. We want to come down to the reality, which is in front of the eyes of most people in the world. Mainland Chinese, or people of other countries, must obtain a visa issued by our government to visit Taiwan. We have our own government, land, people, defense and constitution. If the ROC is not a state, what else can it be? The ROC has always been a sovereign state.
Let me talk about the ROC's economic strength. Our economic strength surpasses that of Belgium, Austria and a few other European countries. In many aspects, we rank within the top 20 countries in the world. So the whole world should recognize the reality. We always want to express our goodwill to the Mainland. Cordial cross-strait relations and smooth exchanges will benefit everyone. We will continue to strive to move in this direction.
Many have accused President Lee of advocating Taiwan independence. I have reiterated that if the ROC attempts to seek Taiwan independence, it will not do so. There have been no exchanges between South Korea and North Korea. Between them there are only political negotiations, and no trade, economic or social exchanges. Although the two sides signed a non-invasion treaty, the two still engage in war.
What actually helped cross-strait relations is what we have done by building up solid social and economic foundation for the two sides. We are biding the time for an improvement in the political system in Mainland China, leading to eventual unification. This is an unprecedented undertaking, which is never tried by South Korea and North Korea, East Germany and West Germany or South Vietnam and North Vietnam.
In the past, we, out of goodwill, defined the two sides as two political entities, but the Mainland trampled on that, accusing us of seeking Taiwan independence. Whatever we say or do, Mainland China always accuses us of seeking Taiwan independence. Any thing that is not in agreement with Mainland China's mindset is regarded as a move for Taiwan independence. So, at the time of advancing into the 21st century, it is time for us to adjust our policy. At the time when ARATS Chairman Wang is about to visit Taiwan, when the two sides are greeting a new epoch, our pragmatic move to amend the policy is to allow the world, as well as Mainland China, to fully realize the reality of cross-strait relations.
A FUTURE CHINA: DEMOCRATIC & REUNIFIED
Q. Are you saying that the state of "special state-to-state relations" has existed since 1949? For the purposes of showing goodwill, the government opted to use an ambiguous reference for cross-strait relations at eight or night years ago. And, the government was just switching to the correct wording that state-to-state relations have existed since 1949?
A. This is too theoretical a way of describing the entire development. Cross-strait developments have undergone various stages, which are difficult to summarize into one sentence. It is also difficult and impractical to apply the new definition to generalize all the stages during the past 50 years.
Old definitions fit the past, and a new definition is for the present. The definition is revised this time as it was in 1991 to change the wording of the bygone period under martial law rule. At that time, we believed the old reference "no co-existence" would cause tensions between the two sides, so our side made the first move, out of goodwill, revising it into relations between "political entities." But Mainland China failed to make corresponding adjustments. We then have to consider making further revisions. It would be difficult to generalize all the earlier developments into one phrase.
Q. The government used to say that "there are two equal political entities under one China." But, what you said was "special state-to-state relations," leaving out the reference about "one China." Such reference (under one country) still existed in the Basic Law of Germany. Do you think the two sides could sign a treaty similar to Germany's Basic Treaty?
A. Yes. Issues like these certainly can be discussed as soon as the two sides are on equal footing, rather than under Mainland China's "one-China principle."
Q. You mentioned that the two sides have "special state-to-state relations." President Lee said there is no need for Taiwan to announce independence. Is it necessary for the two sides to consider unification?
A. Unification will come in the future, after the Mainland becomes democratized. This goal remains unchanged.
THE TWO-GERMANY MODEL
Q. You mentioned the East Germany-West Germany Model, which was rejected by the Mainland. Are you saying that the model is the one for the unification of the two sides?
A. I do not wish to use a very simplified or modular way to discuss the future. We can find similarities and differences among different models. So we should not be so fixed. In view of Germany's unification, however, we do not exclude the possibility of following the model. However, the Mainland does. In fact, East Germany and West Germany, South Korea and North Korea and South Vietnam and North Vietnam all have or had dual representatives in the United Nations, which does not hinder their pursuit of unification.
Q. You mentioned that it was time to make a policy change. The Statute Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area defines the "Mainland area" as the ROC's territory outside the Taiwan area. This definition might be outdated, given the new policy you just mentioned. Has MAC, an agency under the Executive Yuan, ever considered making revisions to the statute?
A. Detailed issues require further study. Regarding the Guidelines for National Unification and the Statute, there has been no decision so far for revisions. The executive branch can discuss these matters with the Legislative Yuan and National Assembly.
Q. Does the government plan to renew the UN bid?
A. This should be answered by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I am not in a position to answer this question.
Q. One hypothetical question. Should ARATS send a letter agreeing to visit Taiwan October 12-19, but requiring that the visit must be under the "one-China principle", would you accept this or reject it?
A. It is better for me not to answer a hypothetical question right now. We have to wait and see.
The MAC News Briefing is an English transcript of the weekly news conference held by the Mainland Affairs Council. We try our best to provide an accurate English translation. In case of discrepancy, the Chinese text rules.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
