Q1. From Europe there is an impression that an intensive dialogue is going on between Taiwan and mainland China, but at the same time it looks like this dialogue is taking place without you, Taiwan's elected president. What happened?
A: Of course, it depends on which angle or perspective you take in viewing cross-strait dialogue and interaction at this current stage.
If you view cross-strait issues as a chess game, there are players, there are pawns, and there are bystanders that stay out of the game to observe and watch.
Q2.Now you aren't speaking about real persons, like Mr. Lien or Mr. Soong. That was a general description.
A:My response to your question is that the solution to cross-strait issues would depend on the players of the chess game, not the pawns. Some people who are actually pawns, however, may think of themselves as players.
The opposition parties cannot represent the government, nor can opposition leaders assume government authority. The eventual resolution of cross-strait issues has to be done on a government-to-government basis. Only through contact, dialogue, and consultation between governments can we truly resolve the issues and differences across the Strait.
The real players are the leaders on each side of the Strait as well as the governments that they represent.
As to the others who seem to be there, they are observers, or bystanders, or pawns.
Q3. I think, of course, a lot of people in Europe would agree with your view. Nevertheless, it seems that the two persons we spoke about are making history. You once said, "I'm a maker of history." Now it seems it is the opposition parties that are making history in cross-strait relations.
A: Correct, I am a maker of history. Of course, in a historical sense, some people may play certain roles, just like in a play; there is a prologue and a grand finale, but the prologue and grand finale cannot replace the main plot.
There may be some people who want to get attention first and attract the spotlight, so they rush to shake hands with the Chinese leaders. The main opposition parties could never replace the government, however, nor could an opposition leader ever replace the leader of the country.
After the Chinese government passed the so-called "anti-separation law," it brought upon itself tremendous pressure from the international community. In order to break the circle and decrease the pressure, China tried to utilize Taiwan's opposition leaders. In a way, China scheduled the visits earlier than intended. In doing that, visits by Taiwan's opposition leaders not only helped decrease the pressure China faced in the international community, they also helped China to divide Taiwan society and hurt Taiwan's solidarity. That's why we have "China fever" right now.
The two opposition leaders made this trip for their own gain. In view of the upcoming election for members of the ad hoc National Assembly, which will take place on May 14, they need the visits to boost the chances of their parties winning this election.
Q4.Nevertheless, it seems that the citizens of Taiwan support this progress and are in favor of these two visits.
A: think what the people support are dialogue and reconciliation across the Strait. That is also what the Taiwan government has been promoting in the past four or five years, because we believe the key to the normalization of cross-strait relations lies in increased contact, dialogue, and consultation.
I think people are very clear about Taiwan being an independent sovereign country and about Taiwan having its own democratically elected government and leader. Taiwan also has its own governmental system and judicial system. Nobody can replace the government's authority. Despite their visits to China and irrespective of any conclusions they might reach, the leaders of Taiwan's opposition parties can never replace the government, and can never represent Taiwan.
Q5. The president used a nice metaphor of the theater play, with its prologue and main theme. I am just wondering, if you use this metaphor, could the final act of such a theater play be a summit between you and President Hu Jintao?
A: Well, of course, if there is dialogue and consultation between the two governments, we have to send representatives. I consider myself and President Hu to be the highest-level representatives of our respective governments. If, one day, there are dialogue, consultation, and negotiations between the two sides of the Strait, of course, there is the possibility that I will personally meet with President Hu of China.
Q6. Can the two visits of Mr. Lien and Mr. Soong be a first step? Or would the president say these visits are a different [matter] and they are not really connected with this long-range process of reconciliation?
A: I am sure there must be some bearing between the two; that they are somehow related, but there is no absolute relationship, and no cause and effect. If they have indeed taken one step, perhaps their visits will serve as catalysts for further consultation between the two sides. Nevertheless, any so-called common vision, conclusions, feelings, or reservations that they might attain through these visits have no relationship to any future government-to-government contacts.
Their visits may serve as references for the future, however, and may help to clarify certain issues. For example, both agreed on the so-called "1992 consensus," although this is something that has never actually existed. The so-called "1992 consensus" was created eight years after the 1992 Hong Kong meeting. At the end of April 2000, then-chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, Su Chi of the Kuomintang (KMT), invented this new term, the "1992 consensus."
Let me offer another example: On February 24 of this year, Chairman Soong and I had a meeting and reached a ten-point consensus. The first point was that we both hold the view that the Republic of China is an independent sovereign country. We hope that this independent sovereign status quo will be respected by both sides of the Strait and by the international community. That it is important to defend our national sovereignty as the status quo was the second point of our consensus.
I think this is the point about conclusions and consensus: whether, with James Soong now in China, the Beijing authorities will accept each of those points that we reached on February 24. I think the answer will be clear very soon. These visits allow us to clarify these issues further and, therefore, whether the answer is yes or no, to some degree, they can serve as references for future dialogue.
Q7. You have called for a dialogue with Beijing and the Chinese have always set the condition that you must accept the "one China" principle. And if I understand you correctly, you wouldn't be prepared to do that.
A: Actually, it is not only I who cannot accept the "one China" principle. Even Chairmen Lien and Soong cannot accept the "one China" principle. They only accept that there is one China for which each side has its own interpretation.
The Beijing authorities' insistence that Taiwan accept the "1992 consensus" is because they are using the so-called "1992 consensus" to wrap up the "one China" principle. They want to force Taiwan to accept the so-called "one China" principle.
Q8. This would mean that the Chinese should also invite you in a way, since Mr. Soong and Mr. Lien do not accept the "one China" principle.
A: Both of them accepted the "1992 consensus," which, in fact, is non-existent, so as to meet the conditions required by the Beijing authorities.
Q9. Looking into the future, can you imagine unifying with China?
A: The future of Taiwan and the future of cross-strait relations can only be decided by the 23 million people of Taiwan. Only these people have the right to make a decision. The Republic of China is an independent sovereign country. Its sovereignty is vested in its 23 million people. Any change in Taiwan's future can only be decided by the 23 million people of Taiwan. In my inaugural speech on May 20, 2004, I made it very clear that, so long as we have the consent of the 23 million people of Taiwan, we do not exclude the possibility of establishing any form of political relations across the Strait. In other words, unification and independence are both options in the future.
Q10. Can you imagine a formally independent Taiwan?
A: We are now an independent sovereign country bearing the national moniker "the Republic of China." I think this is the status quo and, especially, it is also a fact.
Q11. I think from the status quo, both sides of the Strait have benefited in a way that is appreciated. Why do you risk, in a way, the status quo by talking about constitutional revisions and changing the name of the country? There is a feeling that you risk giving up the status quo.
A: Well, I want to make some further elaboration on the previous answer. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China, standing on either side of the Strait, are each an independent sovereign country. They have divided rule and neither has exercised effective jurisdiction over the other.
Each side is an independent sovereign country. This does not affect future possibilities for these two independent countries becoming one country, however. For example, before the unification of Germany, there was East Germany and West Germany, each of which was an independent sovereign country and each was a member of the United Nations. This did not affect the later unification of these two countries.
At present, the People's Republic of China does not recognize the ROC. It also obstructs our participation in international organizations such as the United Nations. I think this does not help to realize their expectations of eventual unification. Quite on the contrary, what they have been doing is only drawing the distance between the two countries further apart.
In my two inaugural speeches delivered in 2000 and 2004, I pledged the "Five Noes" policy, which stated that, so long as China has no intention of using force against Taiwan, for each of my terms of office as president, I would adhere to the "Five Noes" policy. This includes not changing the national moniker.
Our constitutional reengineering project is aimed at enhancing Taiwan's national competitiveness and good governance. With the consensus of legislators from both governing and opposition parties, a special session of the Legislature on August 23, 2004, passed the draft of constitutional amendments relating to constitutional reengineering. The four items of particular focus included halving the number of legislative seats, adopting a "single district, two votes" system, abolishing the National Assembly, and giving citizens the right to vote on constitutional revisions through referendum once the National Assembly has been abolished. After the upcoming election of the ad hoc National Assembly on May 14, the newly elected members of the National Assembly will complete the first stage of Taiwan's constitutional reengineering.
The second stage of our constitutional reengineering is also very important, as we will choose between adopting a parliamentary system like that of Germany, a presidential system such as that of the United States, or a dual-executive system like France's, or simply maintaining Taiwan's unique constitutional system. This is also important for enhancing our national competitiveness and attaining good governance.
Furthermore, we will need to discuss whether we want to retain the current five-branch division of powers under our Constitution or adopt the three-branch division of powers like in Germany or the United States.
The other question has to do with whether, as a small country, Taiwan should retain its current three-tier government, or adopt a two-tier system. At present, we have the municipal governments of Taipei City and Kaohsiung City, the Taiwan provincial government, and the national government. The territory and size of Taiwan Province are almost identical with those of the entire country. So, at present, the provincial government has been suspended. Whether the Taiwan provincial tier of government should be abolished in the future is, therefore, another important issue.
Yet another issue is whether our national legislature should have the power to veto the president's nomination of the premier (president of the Executive Yuan). In the past, nomination of the premier required assent of the national legislature; this article was subsequently repealed through constitutional revision; but now some people are discussing the restoration of such a system. This second stage of constitutional reform or reengineering has absolutely no bearing on the issues of unification or independence, therefore, and no bearing on the sovereignty or territory of our country.
Our constitutional reform or reengineering project will be conducted only on a basis of maintaining the status quo.
Q12. But the US government is also urging both sides, Beijing and Taiwan, to avoid provocation and seek dialogue. Is such a warning necessary at all? Doesn't it show that Washington is concerned about your main … [ellipses denote words or phrases missing due to poor quality of recording].
A: On May 5, President Bush of the United States telephoned President Hu of China, asking him to make contact and undertake dialogue with me as the duly elected leader of Taiwan’s government.
The United States, as well as other countries in the world, has always held the opinion that international disputes should be settled and differences resolved through dialogue. This same principle is true for cross-strait issues.
The United States encourages and welcomes dialogue, contact, and consultation between the two sides. That is why they have said they welcome the visits to China by the chairmen of Taiwan's opposition parties, Messrs. Lien and Soong. Nevertheless, real and permanent resolution of cross-strait issues lies in the exercise of power by the national leaders and governments of both sides.
Q13. I think in this context it would be important to know, President Chen, how Taiwan would react if the European Union were to lift its 10-year-old arms embargo on China.
A: The EU arms embargo was introduced after the Tiananmen Square Incident in 1989 about 16 years ago due to China's oppression of human rights. To date, China's human rights record has not improved much, and many people think that the embargo should not be lifted.
There is not only the oppression of Falungong followers, but also absolutely no religious freedom in China. Moreover, hardly any press freedom exists in China. On May 3, the International Freedom House released its 2005 report, evaluating the degree of press freedom in 194 countries in the world. Taiwan ranks at the top with European countries and the United States, which enjoy complete press freedom. China is ranked at the bottom, however, with countries that virtually have no press freedom whatsoever, coming in at 177 out of 194 countries.
A non-democratic, non-free country could not possibly have any improvement in human rights. Right now, it is clear that the reason for the EU's arms embargo still exists. Furthermore, on March 14, the National People's Congress of China passed its so-called "anti-separation law," thereby attempting to unilaterally change the status quo of peace in the Strait and even stipulating the use of non-peaceful means to resolve the Taiwan Strait issue. I think such an action could not possibly be tolerated by the international community.
Should the arms embargo be lifted, it would greatly encourage a non-democratic country to use force against democratic Taiwan. For this reason, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated after the passage of China's "anti-separation law that, should the EU lift its arms embargo on China at this time, it would be sending the wrong signal to China.
Q14. However, Taiwan could ask for more military support from the US, if the embargo were to be lifted.
A: The stance of the US government is very clear. The US strongly opposes the so-called "anti-separation law" and, therefore, asked the EU not to lift the arms embargo on China.
That is why the US Deputy Secretary of State Nicholas Burns stated that lifting the EU arms embargo on China would be like endorsing China's "anti-separation law."
Q15. One question to that law: despite the anger in Taiwan about this law, I think you gained a ton of political support at home and much sympathy toward Taiwan from around the world. Wouldn't you agree that this is a positive interpretation?
A: I think that this is a result of the misjudgment of China's leaders.
Q16. So that brings me to one of the last questions. I think you once said that Mr. Hu Jintao is a man without abilities. Do you feel confirmed in this judgment after the recent half-week?
A:I would like to refer to the time that Time magazine listed President Hu of China and myself as two of the 100 most influential figures of the world. Mr. Hu was described as a mysterious figure.
Some have compared President Hu with his predecessor Jiang Zemin. They observed that President Hu takes some harder approaches than Jiang Zemin Zemin but, in some aspects, he takes much softer approaches.
As Taiwan rises in the level of democratization, China always sees Taiwan as moving toward independence. China never has relaxed its oppression or belligerent rhetoric against Taiwan. In 1996, for example, when we held our first popular presidential election, China launched missiles into Taiwan's waters. In Taiwan's 2000 presidential election, China once again resorted to belligerent rhetoric and military intimidation against Taiwan. On top of this, during Taiwan's 2004 presidential election and first national referendum, the Chinese government tried again to pressure Taiwan through the US government. The results of the elections have proven that their tactics have not worked very well. All of the candidates China disliked were elected. Through popular election, former President Lee Teng-hui was elected once and myself twice. This proves that, since the Jiang Zemin era, China has misjudged Taiwan. Now in the Hu Jintao era, China continues to make wrong decisions, such as passing its "anti-separation law." If you ask whether Hu Jintao is wiser than Jiang Zemin, we will say that we don't know.
Q17. He [Hu Jintao] has struck back in this public relations war, right? He has welcomed the opposition leaders and offered you two nice pandas as gifts. Will you accept them?
A: Judging from how quickly the Chinese authorities invited our opposition leaders to visit China against the backdrop of enormous pressure faced after passing the "anti-separation law," I must admit that President Hu can be very flexible.
Now Hu Jintao is using a united front tactic against Taiwan, such as by trying to cause division in Taiwan. Will this again backfire, however, and, instead of dividing Taiwan, actually help to consolidate Taiwan's solidarity?
Over the past four or five years, Taiwan has seen fierce infighting between the opposition parties and the governing party as well as a sharp division between the pan-green and pan-blue camps. Likewise, it has been difficult for me to sit down with the opposition leaders and discuss the issues. Due to their Beijing trips, however, I was able to shake hands with Chairman Soong and speak over the phone with Chairman Lien. Both chairmen have gone there, with one of them having returned and the other due back shortly. The two of them have noted that the support of the government and its promotion of normalization of cross-strait dialogue are necessary. Even though both could reach very good conclusions with the other side, they could not possibly realize their goals without the government. Their visits to China, which have helped to promote reconciliation among the governing and opposition parties, could maybe even help solidify Taiwan and produce an environment conducive to cooperation among the different political parties.
Q18. One could see now that the political interpretation is that Hu Jintao showed some flexibility. Now one could argue that it is up to you to show some flexibility. What kind of flexibility can you offer?
A: Well, we will not be absent. We will be one of the key players. Whatever excellent observations or suggestions that Chairmen Lien and Soong could have upon the conclusion of their visits to China, they have to sit down and talk with their own government in the end, because, without the assent and recognition of the government, no positive resolution or action can be taken to realize the normalization of cross-strait relations.
Whatever the opposition party leaders may agree upon, the "1992 consensus" or even "one China" or the "constitutional one China," only what the government of Taiwan says will truly count in the end.
If the government does not agree or consent, and if the leader of the country does not nod his head, whatever they say will be invalid.
Q19. We have discussed before, the Chinese and US interaction and cross-strait dialogue. The security dialogue between China and the US has become more important, with the war on terrorism and the issue of North Korea, where the US needs China. Does it create problems for Taiwan in the long term with closer relationship on security matters between Washington and Beijing?
A: I am sure that, in some aspects, the United States needs the support and accommodation of China, for example, on the North Korea or Iraq issues, or counter-terrorism action. These do not necessarily have to be linked to the Taiwan issue, however. For example, in the "two-plus-two" meeting between the United States and Japan earlier this year, the Taiwan issue was officially listed as one of their common strategic objectives for the first time, and they also encouraged that the issue of Taiwan Strait be resolved through dialogue and peaceful means. Such an action was unprecedented.
Q20. The Japanese relations – is it just symbolic, which is important for you, or is it of some practical use?
A: This has something to do with the second part of my answer to your previous question. The US government severely opposed the EU's lifting of its arms embargo against China. President Bush, as I know, lobbied leaders of major EU countries. It also shows that, even though in some aspects the United States needs the support of China, it does not affect their opposing the lifting of the arms embargo.
Another example is that the US government strongly opposed Chinas passage of its so-called "anti-separation law." They regarded this as China's playing with fire. Even though the US still needs support from China regarding North Korea, their position may not change in some other areas.
A fourth example to support my argument is that PRC President Hu Jintao's invitation to Chairmen Lien and Soong from Taiwan's opposition parties to visit China is a united front tactic against Taiwan and an attempt to divide Taiwan internally. The United States understands this very well. They think that China's action shows its insincerity, and that it intends to divide Taiwan. This is why President Bush and other high-ranking US officials have urged President Hu to engage in dialogue with me, the duly elected leader of Taiwan's government.
Q21. Last question: You attended the funeral of Pope John Paul II but, according to reports, the Vatican denied you a second visa for the inauguration of the new Pope. Do you feel anger about such diplomatic setbacks, humiliation? Or is it something you are used to and it doesn't really matter to you?
A: I don't see it as a diplomatic setback. In fact, we appreciate the Holy See's concern and emphasis on friendship towards Taiwan, allowing me the opportunity to attend the late Pope's funeral mass and to pay my last tribute to this great man as the representative of the Taiwan people and government. Thus, I became the first ROC (Taiwan) president to visit the Vatican after the establishment of our formal diplomatic ties 63 years ago, in 1942.
Regarding the inaugural ceremony of the new Pope, Benedict XVI, I think many of the leaders who were at the funeral mass of the late Pope were not there at his inauguration. For example, President George Bush, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, and President Jacques Chirac of France were not there, either.
Twenty-seven years ago, when John Paul II became Pope, Taiwan only sent a minister without portfolio to represent our government at his inauguration. But at this inauguration, we were represented by the minister of the interior, who is one of the most important ministers of the cabinet.
Right now, we still maintain very amicable relations with the Vatican, and have not found any discrimination against or humiliation of Taiwan.
We're glad that the new Pope is a German national. Actually, before he was elected as the new Pope, I had a hunch that he was going to be elected, telling my staff that Cardinal Ratzinger would surely be elected because, as I have mentioned before, when Time magazine selected 100 most influential figures of the world, I happened to be listed on the same page as the new Pope, then Cardinal Ratzinger. In fact, I asked Taiwan's minister of the interior to present that edition of Time magazine as my present to the new Pope, Benedict XVI. On the magazine, I signed my name and offered my words of congratulations. I think that was the only present of its kind given to the new Pope on his inauguration. Upon seeing it, Benedict XVI smiled and, also alongside him, his secretary of state and deputy secretary of state turned their heads over and took a look. I think the present was well taken.
I think it was God's will that I could have the opportunity to attend the funeral mass of the late Pope in the Vatican, sitting and standing by the side of many other world leaders, including President Bush of the United States, and later I had the honor to be listed on the same page along with him as one of the 100 most influential figures of the world. I'm most obliged and appreciative.