Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

Subjects: MAC¡¦s position paper on August 1, APEC meetings, ARATS Chairman Wang Daohan¡¦s visit to Taiwan.

MAC Vice Chairman Sheu Ke-sheng

at the August 20, 1999 Press Conference

Questions and Answers:

Q.         Recently, Li Zhaoxing, the People¡¦s Republic of China ambassador to the United States, criticized President Lee Teng-hui as a ¡§trouble-maker.¡¨ The PRC State Council Taiwan Affairs Office urged Taiwan to publicly retract the ¡¨special state-to-state relationship,¡¨ adding that its hope lies in the people in Taiwan. What is MAC¡¦s view?

A.         MAC made public its position paper on the ¡§special state-to-state relationship¡¨ on August 1. Our stance has been stated clearly therein. Basically, our explicit definition of the cross-strait relations was a preparation for the next-stage cross-strait relations. It is a forward-looking move for the future. We realize that the other side hopes to embark on political dialogue and communication with our side. To prepare for that, we must give a clear definition of the cross-strait relations so that the two sides can proceed with negotiations as equals.

        In our view, to clarify our position was by no means trouble-making, because, as we have said, we did not alter the status quo. It is under such a framework that cross-strait relations and the Taiwan Straits situation can develop in a peaceful and stable manner, which will contribute to the stability and peace in the Asia-Pacific region as well as to peaceful development in the world.

        We want to reiterate that the ROC is a peace-promoter rather than a trouble-maker. We have never conducted saber-rattling activities. We are always friendly and have good intentions, and we call for the other side to read the MAC¡¦s August 1 position paper sincerely, pragmatically, and carefully. It may thus realize that we are promoting a peaceful and stable cross-strait relationship on the principles of sincerity and good will. We hope that the PRC as well as other countries could understand this.

        I want to stress again that clear definition of the cross-strait situation does not mean any change to the government¡¦s Mainland policy.  Our Mainland policy remains intact. We will keep on promoting cross-strait exchanges and dialogue with the aim to resume previous institutional negotiations. Engaging in dialogue, communication and negotiations is the only way to peacefully resolve issues. We hope the cross-strait relations can proceed to a win-win outcome, which has been a consistent goal for us. Most important of all, our goal of seeking a democratic and unified new China remains the same. Our statements should be clear enough to make everyone realize that the government expects to promote the cross-strait relations under rational, peaceful and interactive situations, which will benefit the welfare of the people on both sides and bring about peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region as well.

Q.        The PRC President Jiang Zemin sent a letter to the U.S. President Bill Clinton in late July or early August. Is MAC aware of that?

A.        Regarding the letter, we learned of it from press reports. MAC has no detailed information. We therefore can not comment on that.

Q.        The government has repeated its stance, but the international reality may not meet our expectation. It seems that our strength is insufficient. Now the PRC-U.S. summit will take place during the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings. What is MAC¡¦s view on the APEC meeting?

A.        The APEC has existed for 10 years. It serves as a forum to discuss the Asian-Pacific regional economic issues. During the APEC meetings, it is natural for countries to arrange bilateral summit meetings on issues of mutual concern. This has become a tradition. Our representatives have done the same thing too, both at ministerial meetings or summit meetings.

Q.        Does MAC plan to send representatives from MAC or SEF to join the delegation to the APEC meeting?

A.        Representatives to the APEC meeting would consist of officials from various agencies-in-charge. SEF is not a government agency; it is a private foundation.

Q.        So will MAC delegate representatives? At what level?

A.        MAC will send representatives to the meeting as we did. The list of the representatives is still being prepared.

Q.        You just mentioned that you knew about Jiang¡¦s letter to Clinton from press reports. Does that indicate that you were not aware of it before?

A.        We are checking into the background of this event. So, I will refrain from making any comment at present. Press reports often attributed their information to ¡§resources¡¨ or ¡§scholars.¡¨ Commenting on unverified information could be misleading. We can not make any comment at this point.

Q.        The Mainland has toned down its attack against the ¡§special state-to-state relationship¡¨, and called it an ¡§aborted plan¡¨ and President Lee¡¦s personal views. Does this mean that ¡§special state-to-state relationship¡¨ will be only a verbal argument, a statement of position? Will there be actions to embody the idea following this?

A.    I have said very clearly. Please read carefully the MAC¡¦s August 1 position paper. The government¡¦s Mainland policy remains intact. We defined the position in order to reflect reality, which was meant to serve as a launching-pad for the two sides to proceed to higher-level dialogue and negotiations in the future. Future talks should be between equals, rather than a central government vs. a local government or a sovereign state vs. a political entity. Our position is very clear. Our Mainland policy is the same: to promote cross-strait exchanges and to continue dialogue and communication. We hope to resume the institutional negotiations through dialogue and communication. SEF-ARATS (Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait) negotiations led to the first Koo-Wang Talks in April 1993. We feel such a framework of negotiations is very meaningful. We also consider that Beijing was pragmatic at that stage, when the two sides pushed the exchanges and negotiations under mutual consensus. It is crucial for the two sides to abide by agreements, cultivate mutual trust, and then conduct dialogue and negotiations on other issues. 

Q.        After meeting with HKSAR Secretary of Justice Elsie Leung Di-sie, the PRC Vice Premier Qian Qichen told media that Hong Kong should not permit public support for ¡§special state-to-state relationship.¡¨ It is generally believed that Qian¡¦s statement was directed at remarks by Cheng An-kuo, Director-general of the Hong Kong Affairs Bureau, who defended the government¡¦s policy. What are MAC¡¦s guidelines for the representative to Hong Kong to answer questions related to ¡§special state-to-state relationship¡¨?

A.        Director-general Cheng¡¦s statements in Hong Kong were to explain the government¡¦s policy at this stage. There is nothing wrong with stating the fact. In a society with freedom of expression, everyone is entitled to speak, and others should respect this right. We hope Hong Kong could remain a society with freedom of speech as it used to be.

Q.        Is there any further information on ARATS Chairman Wang Daohan¡¦s visit to Taiwan?

A.        We have repeated our hope for Wang to visit Taiwan as scheduled. We are still working on the preparation. We want to reiterate that we hope Chairman Wang can visit Taiwan as scheduled. Our invitation to him is sincere. We hope that during his visit, the two sides may conduct dialogue and communication, and any issue can be discussed. If their side has any different view regarding our statement on ¡§special state-to-state relations,¡¨ their views could be discussed as well.

        We want to emphasize that cross-strait issues should be settled under a peaceful and stable framework. What is a peaceful framework? It is to resolve things through dialogue rather than force. When there are different opinions, we should be able to discuss them. We insist on this position and we will not give up this position on communication and dialogue. We therefore urge the Beijing authorities to treat the whole thing in a pragmatic, rational and peaceful manner. Again, we express our welcome to Wang¡¦s visit to Taiwan.

Q.        Right now the explanation of ¡§special state-to-state relationship¡¨ is based on the MAC¡¦s August 1 position paper. In the paper, the government refuted the PRC¡¦s ¡§one China¡¨ principle and presented our viewpoints and reasons. Can you expound whether China¡¦s sovereignty is split or not based on the position paper?

A.        The government¡¦s viewpoints have been stated in the paper. We have clearly described our stance in the paper, so there is no need to elaborate on that. Please refer to the paper, and I will not elaborate on that.

Q.        (Presidential candidate-to-be of the New Party) Lee Ao said he supported the ¡§one country, two systems.¡¨ formula. What is your view?

A.    I would not comment on such a personal view. It is clear that the government can by no means accept ¡§one country, two systems.¡¨ According to MAC¡¦s public opinion surveys conducted during the past eight to nine years, an average of 80% respondents disagreed with and rejected ¡§one country, two systems¡¨ proposed by the PRC.

Q.        What is MAC¡¦s stance if more presidential candidates come up with view points inconsistent with the government¡¦s Mainland policy?

A.        Presidential candidates might have all kinds of views. The government will not comment on their statements respectively. The government¡¦s position is very clear that the PRC¡¦s ¡§one country, two systems¡¨ is by no means acceptable.