DATE=3/24/2000
TYPE=ON THE LINE
TITLE=ON THE LINE: CHINA AND TAIWAN
NUMBER=1-00833
EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY - 619-0037
CONTENT=
THEME: UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE
Anncr: On the Line - a discussion of United
States policy and contemporary issues. This week,
"China and Taiwan." Here is your host, Robert
Reilly.
Host: Hello and welcome to On the Line. On March
18th, voters in Taiwan elected Chen Shui-bian from
the Democratic Progressive Party as their next
president. The vote marked the second time Taiwan
has held democratic presidential elections and the
first time an opposition party candidate has
captured Taiwan's highest office. The Nationalist
Party had ruled Taiwan for over five decades. The
People's Republic of China had denounced
President-elect Chen's candidacy, suggesting that
if he won, war might result. Mr. Chen's party has
advocated independence for Taiwan. Since the
election, both sides have tempered their rhetoric,
but the future of Taiwan-China relations remains
unclear.
Joining me today to discuss China and Taiwan are
three experts. David Lampton is director of China
studies at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced
International Studies. Douglas Paal is president
of the Asia Pacific Policy Center. And Yuan I is a
visiting fellow of the Brookings Center for
Northeast Asian Policy Studies. He is from the
Institute of International Relations at National
Chengchi University in Taiwan.
Welcome to the program. Mr. Lampton, how do you
read the results of this election?
Lampton: First of all, I think it is the first
time in Chinese history that you have not only had
a democratic election but a change of party in a
peaceful way. And therefore, I think it is
historically important. I think it also shows that
Chinese political culture is consistent with
democratic elections. But in terms of American
interests and regional interests, I think this
election has potential consequences for stability.
And I think that all three parties, that is to say
the mainland, Taiwan and the United States, are
going to have to act with great prudence and
sensitivity in the months and, indeed, probably
years ahead.
Host: Douglas Paal, we know that during the last
presidential election there were rockets flying
through the air and U.S. battle carrier groups in
the area. This time the rhetoric from the mainland
was particularly harsh, spelling out dire
consequences should Mr. Chen win. Did the fact
that they did that precipitate the very result
they were hoping to avoid, or what influence did
that have on the election?
Paal: To answer that question is going to
require some technical analysis of the polls and I
do not think that is available yet. Beijing
clearly, in the last moments of the campaign, got
nervous that Mr. Chen was actually going to win.
They treated this as their worst nightmare that
they hoped would never come true. And when it
became clear, they started ratcheting up the
rhetoric. But this still showed restraint in
comparison to 1996 when they fired those missiles
you mentioned near Taiwan. And I think that
restraint and the behavior of Mr. Chen since he
has become president-elect, which has also been
restrained, means an opportunity, a possibility
for some improvement in relations across the
Taiwan Strait that would not have been anticipated
if you had been talking about Mr. Chen winning
just five or six days ago. This is surprisingly
moderate and constructive behavior by both sides
in the immediate aftermath of the election.
Host: What is your opinion of that, Yuan I?
Yuan: This election result provides an
opportunity for both Taiwanese, as well as Chinese
and Americans, to evaluate the relationship for
the years to come.
Host: But why this result, as opposed to one of
the other two candidates winning? Or would it
have been a new opportunity in any case?
Yuan: This result may have presaged a golden
opportunity for all of us to reevaluate the cross-
strait relations and U.S.-Taipei relations, as
well as U.S.-China relations on the Taiwan issue.
Host: How should they be reevaluated?
Yuan: This is the first time ever that an
opposition party, that in the past has advocated
independence, has won. Now is a time for all of us
to face the reality.
Host: What is the reality, Mr. Lampton?
Lampton: I think the reality is that all three
sides have to be very careful. There is a
convergence of events here. And I am, like Doug,
encouraged by the last few days. And I think, if
we can continue in the direction of moderation on
both sides, that is good. But there are some
worrisome things that lie ahead. One is certainly
on Taiwan. There is going to have to be a series
of decisions about who is going to be the foreign
minister, what is going to be the fate of the
mainland affairs council, the national
reunification guidelines. There will be literally
hundreds of personnel that have to be appointed,
and Beijing will be paying careful attention. In
China, there is political competition going on for
the period when normally Jiang Zemin would be
moving toward the second line of leadership. There
is some jockeying going on there. And Taiwan will
fit into that. And in the United States, we have
our elections. So I think it is incumbent that
each side recognize the other two are looking at
every move very carefully. And we each calibrate
what we do in light of the fact that each of the
other two is very sensitive.
Host: But to what extent have the ground rules
changed? There was a white paper issued
immediately before this election that seemed to
spell out some different conditions for the
relationship between China and Taiwan. Can you
comment on that?
Paal: I used to be in the business of briefing
presidents. And If I were briefing the president
two weeks ago, I would have told him, with the
white paper, with developments over the last
several years on Taiwan, these two sides are
painting themselves into corners from which only
fighting will get them out. And you, in the next
three to five years, will be called to go into
action to defend Taiwan against the P-R-C
[People's Republic of China].
Host: This is an American president you are
speaking of?
Paal: This would be an American president. As a
result of this election, I would still give that
briefing as a possibility. But I would also say
that there is something new, that Chen's arrival
has brought a new element which may give an exit
for the leaderships on both sides to try to find a
pragmatic way down from the position that they
have worked themselves into.
Host: And what is that?
Paal: It is through pragmatic efforts to
recognize that there is a one-China principle out
there in the atmosphere somewhere within which
these two sides can begin to work out some
pragmatic measures to increase trade, direct
transportation, and some exchanges of leaders to
talk about issues.
Yuan: Before going into those details, I think
that we should reexamine the grand strategy of the
Chinese government, whether using the U.S. as a
mediator to maintain the status quo across the
Taiwan Strait, and what is the meaning of the use
of force as the means to achieve unification. I
think it is time to address the fundamental
position of the Chinese government.
Host: Does it not appear, though, that China
does not wish to maintain the status quo? The
whole point of the white paper was to say
negotiations cannot be postponed indefinitely nor
carried on indefinitely. There has to be an end to
them. Some are speculating, Mr. Lampton, that end
may come around 2007 when Jiang Zemin is expected
to retire. And he wants, as his historical legacy,
the unification of all of China. What do you think
about that added element of pressure?
Lampton: Well, I think it is true that the third
"if," that is that negotiations cannot be put off
indefinitely if force is not to be used, is new
because for the first time the P-R-C is, in
effect, threatening the use of force if Taiwan
does not do something, as opposed to the
circumstances where it did something that Beijing
did not like.
Host: Before then, it was only if they declared
independence that force would be used?
Lampton: Or that there would be internal chaos on
Taiwan that would require intervention. But I
think that even Jiang Zemin's desire to leave a
legacy of which Taiwan is a part does not require
that negotiations end by 2007. I think what this
imperative is that he be able to point to some
progress that holds out a significant possibility
that this issue will reach closure on terms
satisfactory to the P-R-C in some period beyond
2007. And so I think what is important is that he
show some progress on this issue, not that it
reaches completion.
Host: There was another thing in the white
paper, wasn't there, Doug Paal, where they implied
that this conversation could take place between
equals? And that was a new element, wasn't it?
Paal: It is an old element that has gone quiet
for some time, and they put back on the table
pretty clearly, which is a positive step.
Host: At the same time, it seemed that
president-elect Chen invited such a meeting and
President Jiang Zemin said, no, you first have to
accept the one-China principle. How is that going
to play out?
Paal: I hope the listeners can bear with this.
But the one side says we will meet only under the
one-China principle. And the other one says we
will meet without preconditions, and then we can
talk about one China. How you parse the
differences between those two positions will be
the diplomats' job in trying to arrange some
manner in which these leaders can get together.
They may never have this meeting. This rhetorical
problem may continue.
Host: From your perspective in Taiwan, what do
you think?
Yuan: A diplomatic maneuver, indeed. Lee
Hamilton is in Taipei now. He will be meeting both
Chen Shui-bian and President Lee Tung-hui in
discussion over a proper proposal that can be
mutually accepted by Taipei and China. And he will
bring that with him and give it to [National
Security Adviser] Sandy Berger. And Sandy Berger
will bring that proposal to Beijing by the time he
visits China next week.
Host: It is interesting that, earlier this week
in Washington, the deputy chief of mission at the
Chinese embassy made a statement in the newspaper
that offered a possible resolution of this
dilemma, saying that the two could meet as party
leaders instead of heads of sovereign entities. I
don't know if that was a trial balloon.
Lampton: Actually, that trial balloon has gone up
before and generally been shot down before. On the
one hand you might hope that it would be accepted,
but I would doubt it for the very simple reason.
And even Chen Shui-bian, in his interview today,
made it clear he is now the leader of the people
of Taiwan, not just the Democratic Progressive
Party. And therefore, if he goes in the role as
party leader, that is not an inclusive role of all
of the people on Taiwan. It is now a multi-party
democracy. So, while I might hope there was such
an easy avenue of exit from this difficulty, I
somehow doubt it, and it has been tried before.
Host: Let me address one other possible impact
of this successful, democratic election. And this
was registered on the Internet in China. And I
will read you two quick things that were posted
after the election last weekend. One: "Taiwan's
democratic election is a good example for us. The
Chinese Communist Party should learn from the
Nationalist Party." Second one: "You've got to
hand it to the Nationalist Party. They are able to
step down gracefully. How long will it take the
Chinese Communist Party to do that?" In other
words, there is not a free press in China, but how
is the success of democracy on Taiwan going to
redound on the Chinese themselves as they look
forward to some kind of reunification?
Paal: I think there will be a big gap in
generational appreciation on the mainland. The
older generation harbors more people who say,
look, what brought us out of chaos in Chinese
history was the Communist Party. If we go down the
route that Taiwan has gone, we are going to end up
out of power, and we do not know what kind of
chaos will result. The younger generation looks at
Taiwan and says, why can't we use methods like
this to get rid of these old guys who have been
sitting on top of us for the last fifty years? In
that generational change will come an alternate
point of view. The P-R-C right now is trying to
stop that from happening. They have been
suppressing political dissent, and that is only
making the eventual earthquake more likely to be a
strong one.
Host: Do you think that is the case? Because the
Communist Party line in China has so often been,
look, it is either us or it is chaos. And now
people can point to another alternative and say,
no, there is Taiwan.
Yuan: The unintended consequences of Taiwan's
election must have exerted tremendous pressure on
the Chinese leadership on the top, and also
inspired the grassroots common people on mainland
China since, thanks to the Internet, they had easy
access to what the reality was on Taiwan. So they
realize, how come the People on Taiwan can
exercise their direct vote in choosing their
leaders, and how come we cannot exercise that vote
on the mainland?
Lampton: I think some of the people around Jiang
Zemin, about two years ago, were actually talking
about political reform. And the phrase they were
using was: what was Mao's contribution? It was
that the Chinese people stood up. What was Deng's
contribution? It was that he led to modernization
and so forth. Well, what is Jiang's legacy going
to be? And at that point many of the people around
him were hoping political liberalization, gradual
to be sure, might be that. I think it is a little
bit discouraging that he has focused more on the
Taiwan issue and put it so front and center. But
it may turn out to be the biggest strategic error
of the current leadership not to generally provide
some avenues for the gradual release of this
pressure that is building up in a system and a
society that is changing so rapidly. So I hope
that they can draw some conclusions from this
election.
Host: Let me ask another question, because you
mentioned, Mr. Lampton, a number of delicate
issues between China and the United States and
Taiwan that could disrupt or advance relations.
Certainly one of these is a bill that passed in
the House of Representatives called the Taiwan
Security Enhancement Act, the purpose of which is
to direct the United States, should the bill pass
the Senate and be signed by the president, to sell
some very sophisticated military equipment to
Taiwan. What do you think of that? What do you
think of the United States's responsibilities to
maintain Taiwan's defense capabilities against the
military modernization we are seeing in China?
Lampton: I think that the Taiwan Security and
Enhancement Act, the bill that passed the House
and is now in the Senate, was not well advised
several months ago, indeed, when it was introduced
almost a year ago. Because, in effect, it is going
to be provocative to Beijing without in fact
providing any more capability for defense to
Taiwan. It does not empower the president to do
anything that he is not already empowered to do.
So I thought it was provocative without creating
new capabilities. Now, with the election, it is my
hope that the president-elect will indicate that
he wants to reevaluate policy across the board,
domestic and foreign, that in fact he wants to
explore dialogue across the strait rather than an
arms race. And it is my hope that Mr. Chen may say
that right at the moment is not the time we are
prepared to commit on major weapons purchases and
we are just as happy to see the United States
delay at least some of the more provocative
weapons sales that might occur, and in fact defer
the issue to explore that possibility that there
are productive avenues here.
Host: Doug Paal, let us say you are advising the
president of the United States, as you have in the
past, and he is confronted with this bill. Do you
tell him to sign it or veto it?
Paal: I would say to veto it because it is
intrusive into his powers, into presidential
prerogatives.
Host: What do you think, as a citizen of Taiwan,
about your capabilities to defend yourselves
should the bellicose threats from China eventuate
in an armed conflict?
Yuan: I think that, in the past, the emphasis
has been tilted to one end, which is purely to the
arms race aspect. I would strongly argue that
probably it is about time to bring in another
aspect, that is arms reduction. I think this is
what we have witnessed in the past fifty years. It
is not a military confrontation in essence. It
should be a choice of a different political
system. In that case, I strongly suggest that we
should contemplate a different approach to solving
these age-old issues.
Host: One last quick question for which I need a
quick response. Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright is appearing at the United Nations Human
Rights Commission meeting in Geneva, a very rare
occurrence, to address this fifty-three member
body, at which a resolution is going to be put
forth by the United States condemning China for
its enormous setbacks in human rights observances.
Is that the right thing to do?
Lampton: In a word, I would say no. We have much
bigger problems at the moment than that, and I
think the secretary of state would be well advised
to be concentrating on the other ones.
Paal: It is a bit of grandstanding, and it is
designed to help get the vote on permanent normal
trade relations through the Congress. I do not
think it is going to do a lot to help that vote,
but that seems to be the concept behind it.
Host: Are you pleased that the United States is
holding up the human rights standard in China?
Yuan: Being Taiwanese, we always wish to see
that the United States uphold its fundamental
principles. It strengthens human rights
everywhere.
I'm afraid that's all the time we have this week.
I would like to thank our guests -- David Lampton
from the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced
International Studies; Douglas Paal from the Asia
Pacific Policy Center; and Yuan I from the
Brookings Center for Northeast Asian Policy
Studies -- for joining me to discuss China and
Taiwan. This is Robert Reilly for On the Line.
Anncr: You've been listening to "On the Line" - a
discussion of United States policies and
contemporary issues. This is --------.
24-Mar-2000 12:14 PM EDT (24-Mar-2000 1714 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
