Transcript of President Chen Shui-bian's Videoconference with Panelists at the American Enterprise Institute
Office of the President
Republic of China (Taiwan)
September 6, 2007
President of the American Enterprise Institute Christopher DeMuth: Ladies and gentlemen, good morning and welcome. My name is Chris DeMuth. I'm President of the American Enterprise Institute(AEI). This morning, AEI is honored and delighted to be hosting this talk by and dialogue with President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan. In Washington, this week, as most eyes are turned on the situation in the Middle East, an important and potentially very serious situation is developing in Asia. During the last several months, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, has, in various steps and communications, revised the position of the United Nations to being that Taiwan is an integral part of the People's Republic of China (PRC). In part in response to this development and in part as a result of developments in Taiwan's democratic domestic politics, a referendum has been scheduled for next March, asking the Taiwanese people to express themselves on the proposition of whether Taiwan should apply for full membership in the United Nations under the name "Taiwan." This scheduled referendum has been sharply criticized by American diplomats, including Deputy Secretary of State Negroponte. It has been sharply criticized by senior officials in the People's Republic of China, and there has even been talk by some Chinese scholars and in some of the state-controlled newspapers of the use of non-peaceful measures in response to the scheduled referendum. Taiwan is a democracy. The referendum plays an important role, and has played an important role, in its democratic development not, as in the United States, to resolve particular, narrow policy questions, but as an expression of popular sentiment. To explain and discuss the thinking behind this referendum, President Chen will give a talk, speaking by satellite hook-up from Taipei. Following his talk, there will be a dialogue. We will hear first from the distinguished members of our panel, including Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Kurt Campbell of the Center for a New American Security, Michael Green of the Center for Strategic & International Studies, Vincent Wang of the University of Richmond, Gary Schmitt of the American Enterprise Institute. That portion of this morning’s symposium will be moderated by my colleague, Dan Blumenthal of AEI. Following these comments, we will have questions from the audience and President Chen has graciously agreed to—in fact this was one thing he wanted very much to do—to respond to the views of the panelists and to those that may be expressed by individuals in the audience.
May I ask you please to decommission all of your cell phones and personal devices? President Chen will speak in Chinese, we have simultaneous translation available at Channel 5 on your headsets. And with that, I ask everyone to give a warm welcome to Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian.
President Chen's opening remarks:
Mr. Christopher DeMuth, President of the American Enterprise Institute, Moderator Dan Blumenthal and the five distinguished panelists: Representative Dana Rohrabacher, co-chair of the House Taiwan Caucus, Dr. Michael Green, former Senior Director of the National Security Council, Dr. Kurt Campbell, President of the Center for a New American Security, Dr. Vincent Wang, Professor of the Department of International Studies at Richmond University, and Dr. Gary Schmitt, Director of Advanced Strategic Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, Representative Joseph Jawshieh Wu, Distinguished Guests and Friends. Good Morning!
First of all, I would like to thank the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) for holding this videoconference between Washington, DC and Taipei on the subject of "The United Nations and Taiwan Democracy." I believe that the continued communication and exchange of views will allow our American friends and the international community to better understand the implications of joining the United Nations (UN) under the name "Taiwan". It will also allow everyone to better understand the connection between, and the need for, a referendum on joining the United Nations and consolidating democracy in Taiwan.
On September 13, 2006, the General Committee of the United Nations once again turned down Taiwan's bid to participate in the UN. I made it clear then that we would have to seriously consider whether or not an alternative strategy was needed in order to secure our right to participate in the UN. On July 20 of this year, I formally submitted my country's application for UN membership under the name "Taiwan" to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. In the past, despite having repeatedly emphasized our desire to participate in some capacity in the United Nations, we had never formally filed an application. This year, however, we decided to alter our strategy and not to again sell ourselves short. We not only want to apply for UN membership, we also want to do so under the name "Taiwan" and in the capacity of a new member state.
Taiwan is not part of the People's Republic of China (PRC). Taiwan is an independent sovereign country and its national sovereignty rests with the 23 million people of Taiwan. This is not only a fact, but it is also the status quo of the Taiwan Strait. There is no need for anybody to tell us whether or not Taiwan is a country. Moreover, Taiwan and PRC are two separate countries, each having independent sovereignty, neither exercises jurisdiction over the other. In other words, there is one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait, Taiwan on one side, and China on the other.
Regarding Resolution 2758, passed by the UN General Assembly on October 25, 1971, this resolution only "decides," and I quote, "to restore all its rights to the People's Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its Government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations, and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place… [which they unlawfully occupy] at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it." The Resolution in its entirety never once mentions "Taiwan." Furthermore, it neither declares Taiwan to be a province of PRC, nor does it accept PRC's assertion of sovereignty over Taiwan. Hence, PRC has no right, and is in fact unable, to represent the 23 million people of Taiwan in the United Nations. It is the people of Taiwan who have the right to ask for appropriate representation in the UN, and it is the people of Taiwan who have even more of a right to request to apply for UN membership from a position of equality.
According to the UN Charter and the Rules of Procedure of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly, Taiwan's membership application should be reviewed and decided upon by the Security Council and General Assembly. The fact that Taiwan is a sovereign country must not be ignored simply based on China's opposition, suppression and boycotting of the issue. Moreover, the fundamental human rights of the 23 million people of Taiwan cannot be stripped away by the UN Secretariat's unlawful abuse of power. I sincerely hope that those countries that love freedom and democracy, and respect human rights, justice and peace, will speak out from a position of justice in the upcoming UN General Assembly, and allow Taiwan the opportunity to have its membership application reviewed fairly.
Over the past half-century, China has neither renounced the use of force against Taiwan nor given up its ambition to annex Taiwan. China continues to deploy ballistic missiles along its southeastern coast targeting Taiwan. The current number of these missiles stands at nearly one thousand, and is increasing by 120 to 150 missiles per year. China's People's Liberation Army has formulated a three-stage military plan for war against Taiwan. These three stages are: to establish combat capabilities for comprehensive contingency response by the end of this year; to build up combat capabilities for large-scale military engagement by 2010; and to ensure victory in a decisive battle by 2015. Furthermore, on March 14, 2005, despite the international community's unanimous opposition, China passed the so-called "Anti-secession Law" which supposedly lays the legal foundation for a military invasion of Taiwan. Over the last year, attempting to unilaterally change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait and constrict Taiwan's space on the international stage, China has further pressured the UN Secretariat to declare that Taiwan is part of PRC, a claim which is, in all reality, false.
In the past, we made compromises on the choice of name for application and method of participation. However, time has shown us that compromise fails to bring us satisfactory results and only leads to continued and relentless suppression. This situation forces us to seriously consider changing our policy and submitting future applications to join the UN under the name "Taiwan." Such actions not only reflect the fact that Taiwan is a sovereign country, but also stem from the general need to defend the status-quo of the Taiwan Strait from being unilaterally changed by China.
As a member of the global society and the democratic community, we understand very well that in reality the political term "Republic of China" was conceived to challenge and deny the legality of the "People's Republic of China." Therefore, applying to rejoin the UN under the name "Republic of China" would be the equivalent of asking the PRC to return its UN seat to us, the Republic of China. This would also resurrect the KMT's ignorant, unwise, unrealistic and obsolete stance that "gentlemen don't stand with thieves." Today, our application to join the UN as a new member under the name "Taiwan" reaffirms that we have no intention of challenging Resolution 2758, or of engaging in a fight with the PRC over "China's representation." In contrast, we hope to show the world that Taiwan is pragmatic and responsible in its desire to participate in the international community.
Established in 1945, the United Nations is the mankind's greatest achievement in the pursuit of peace and freedom. Over the past six decades, the UN has grown in an attempt to incorporate and embrace all nations with passion and sincerity, regardless of size, population or degree of economic development. Applying for UN membership is never seen as a provocative act, except in the sole case of Taiwan, which has been repeatedly shut out of the UN. I believe that Taiwan's preclusion was not initiated by the UN as a whole, or by the international community. Rather, it has been instigated by China. Due to China's ruthless suppression, obstruction and denial of Taiwan, we have been unable to become a UN member. This renders the UN's principle of universality an empty concept.
After two devastating world wars, the allied powers established the UN to serve as a collective security mechanism in hopes of paving the way for long-term peace and stability of the human society. The UN should not become a playground for rogue nations. If Taiwan is to be precluded from the UN and Taiwan's 23 million people are to be deprived of the basic human right to collective security merely because of China's military threats and intimidation, we cannot help but ask what is in store for us next. The lessons we learned in the past are not distant: silence over injustices spawns evil, and appeasement breeds aggression and creates the quickest shortcut to war.
Our dear friends in Washington, D.C.: for years, Taiwan and the United States have held an alliance based on the values of freedom and democracy, and acted as loyal strategic partners to defend security, peace, and stability in the Asia Pacific region. Of course, our stances on certain issues, such as using the name "Taiwan" to enter the UN and holding a referendum on the matter, may differ. However, by no means should these differences undermine the profound friendship between the peoples of Taiwan and the United States. I believe that, through candid and cordial dialogue, we can reconcile our differences in order to continue fighting for our shared belief in freedom, democracy, human rights, justice and peace.
At this point, I would like to quote a popular song, "The Impossible Dream," from the Broadway musical Man of La Mancha in order to express the determination and will of the people of Taiwan to join the United Nations—a sentiment that I share.
The song goes:
To dream the impossible dream
To fight the unbeatable foe
To bear with unbearable sorrow
To run where the brave dare not go
To right the unrightable wrong
To love pure and chase from afar
To try when your arms are too weary to reach the unreachable star
This is my quest, to follow that star
No matter how hopeless, no matter how far
To fight for the right without question or pause
To be willing to march into hell for a heavenly cause
And I know if I'll only be true to this glorious quest
That my heart will be peaceful and calm when I’m laid to my rest
And the world will be better for this
That one man scorned and covered with scars
Still strove with his last ounce of courage
To reach the unreachable star
Our bid to join the United Nations with the name of "Taiwan" is not just a simple struggle or contest between a democratic, free Taiwan and a communist, authoritarian China. It is also a fight between justice and evil within the international community. As long as we follow the path of justice, light and goodness will prevail over darkness and evil. Our commitment will also lead to permanent peace, freedom, prosperity and happiness for all mankind, including the 1.3 billion people of China.
In closing, I would like to once again thank the American Enterprise Institute for its gracious invitation, and the audience for participating in today's discussion. May each of you enjoy good health and every success! Thank you very much!
DeMuth: I will turn the immediate proceedings over to Dan Blumenthal. Dan.
Dan Blumenthal, Resident Fellow at AEI: Thank you very much, Mr. President and Chris DeMuth. I can't think of a better panel to have today with more experience, both in scholarly and in the world of policymaking, to both comment and to ask questions of President Chen. You have all of their bios, they've been introduced to you briefly. We're going to ask them to speak or ask questions for five to seven minutes each. If they do have questions, we're going to ask President Chen to wait till the end of the panel to respond to those questions, after which we will turn to the audience as well. We're gonna go down from left to right with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher first.
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA): Thank you. President Chen, good morning – can you hear me? Well I'm sorry that, I was hoping that you would actually be singing that song for us. So, next time I see you, I'm gonna ask you to sing it for me. I think the real impossible dream is not that the people of Taiwan should have the rights of every other free human being on this planet to determine their own destiny through the ballot box. I think the impossible dream is that the Communist dictatorship not only thinks, in Beijing, not only thinks that they can impose their sovereignty over a group of people who do not want to be part of China, in the Republic of Taiwan, but they think that they can maintain their strong grip of authoritarian power over the people of China. That is the impossible dream. Eventually, not only will the people of Taiwan be free to choose whether they want to be independent or not, but the people of China, eventually, will be free to choose their own government.
And I want to congratulate you and the people of Taiwan for the courage to stand up to this gangster regime on the mainland, to insist on your own rights. Those of us who believe in freedom, and believe that people all over the world have rights that are granted to them by God, which is the essence of what the American Revolution was all about. We are on your side, and we are on the side of the people of Taiwan. They are the ones who will determine who the sovereign entity is that they will owe their allegiance to, not some gangster regime in Beijing, trying to impose its will.
Unfortunately, the Secretary-General of the United Nations seems to have forgot even the rules that govern his behavior. And this is what happens when you deal with gangster regimes and you try to kowtow to these type of monsters that commit the crimes that have been committed by the Beijing regime. [The] Secretary-General does not have the unilateral power to decide that the official position of the United Nations is that Taiwan is part of China. He does not have that authority. And I certainly back your observation, your assertion, that [the] Secretary-General went beyond his scope of authority in making the declaration that he did.
Certainly, the people of Taiwan have a right to apply to the United Nations—especially once the people of Taiwan vote on whether or not that is what they want their official position to be. They have a right to apply to the United Nations and have that application considered as per the rules of the United Nations. So here we have the Communist regime in Beijing undermining even the set rules, the democratic procedures that were established at the United Nations. We can't let that just go by.
I would suggest the history that we have with the United Nations is somewhat nonsensical when it comes to regimes like the one in Beijing. Let's remember, of course, as you did in your remarks, Mr. President, that for many years, the seat in the United Nations that was representing China was being controlled by an authoritarian government that found itself in power in Taipei. And that authoritarian regime under Chiang Kai-shek did not represent the people of China, obviously, and it didn't even represent the people of Taiwan, now, as we are coming to realize because of free elections. So, this idea that the United Nations at that time wasn't recognizing the true government of China, the people who controlled power in China, and in fact, now today they don't want to recognize the true government of Taiwan. So, you have a history in the United Nations of ignoring reality.
The reality is that the people of Taiwan have every right to declare themselves the masters of their own fate through the ballot box, just as every other people in the world have a right to determine their own destiny through the ballot box. We should not be cowering before people who have not even been willing to put themselves before the vote of their own people to, in some way, substantiate their own credibility as a real government, their legitimacy.
Let us note that I have started working with some of my colleagues here to boycott the upcoming Olympics in Beijing. President Chen, I would like to offer you now, publicly, the opportunity to join with us in not sending a team to Beijing as Taiwan and to join us in our boycott of the Olympics. And we are boycotting the Olympics because of the very type of belligerency and threat to stability in the world, but also the repression of their own people, that is represented in Beijing.
One last thought, and that is, there are many people that believe we are gonna create a more peaceful world. And a lot of times the people who are siding with Beijing on this issue on whether the people of Taiwan have a right to determine whether or not they're going to be part of China or not through the ballot box, these people are doing so in a very cowardly way, thinking that this will create more peace and stability in the region and the world. I know and you know, President Chen, that if the people of Taiwan lose and force is used to make them part of, submit to a government that they do not believe in, that this will only be the first step.
Because what China is saying is that it is territory that has rights, and not people. It is the people in Taiwan who have rights. Pieces of land do not have rights. And if we acknowledge, and if we let the regime in Beijing get away with the type of pressure and the use of force, in particular, to obtain its ends—its claims on that territory—what we will see is not a more peaceful world because now that issue has been solved, but instead, Beijing will then move on to its other major territorial claims in the region. Beijing claims huge hunks of territory of what today is Russia; India; it claims huge chunks of the South China Sea. It claims... has many other claims that will lead to nothing but ongoing conflict, if we suggest that land claims are more important than the rights of the people who live on that land to determine their own destiny through the ballot box.
So, we stand with you on principle, and we hope also, for pragmatic reasons, that the people of Taiwan do not give in, that they stand strong, and that yours is not an impossible dream, but instead the dream of all free people in that quest that started in my country 225 years ago, when we declared that all rights are granted by God to every person; and that government only has those powers that are given to it by the consent of the governed. And that is what Taiwan is all about, and that is what the United States is all about. So, good luck, and I'm very pleased to have been with you this morning. We'll be together for a songfest—together real soon. Thank you.
Blumenthal: Thank you very much, Congressman Rohrabacher. As I said, we're going to go through all the comments and questions of the panelists, before President Chen has a chance to respond. So, Dr. Campbell.
Dr. Kurt Campbell, Center for a New American Century: Thanks very much. Thanks, Dan, for helping set this up. I think this shows great initiative, and thank President Chris DeMuth for AEI's continuing support for a strong American engagement in Asia as a whole. And President Chen, I think we were all moved by your passionate appeal, and we thank you for taking the time to address us and to allow us to hear your words.
I also very much liked your rendition of Man of La Mancha [sic]. When I think of Asia policy right now and Taiwan, I actually think of another Broadway musical, in terms of US policy, and that's Cats. Remember that line in Cats, "midnight, not a sound on the pavement," and in fact, what's striking to me right now is that people of goodwill and character can disagree about where we need to head in terms of our Iraq policy in the Middle East. But I think one thing this group—and I know we are joined today by a strong group of people who agree about America's strong interests in Asia, is that we are ignoring many of our interests in Asia, and we are not stepping up to the plate as a great power in Asia over the course of the last several years. We are preoccupied away from Asia, and we've done a bad job. And this is one of the most important issues that the next president of the United States has to readdress. We have to rebalance our portfolio and focus more of our attention on Asia.
As we sit here today, one of the most important dialogues that takes place in Asia is ongoing: APEC—with the American seat empty, because the President had to leave to come back early. I would suggest to you that there's very little the United States has to do to check the box to indicate our strong support for Asia; and there are a few meetings, and unfortunately, over the last couple of years, we haven't been able to find the time to attend those meetings. Secretary Rice has cancelled many of them. President Bush—good for him to spend time with Prime Minister Howard, good on him—but only a short period in APEC, and then we've got to get back. And so the message that we send to Asia is that we've only got one hit on our Rolodex, and that's Iraq. And it's Iraq all the time—and the fact is that we cannot expect to have the influence to shape outcomes in Asia unless we play the Asia game more systematically.
I'm always struck by the words of George Schultz, I think one of our great secretaries of state, when he likened Asia policy to gardening, and that it's a constant—you've got to tend the garden, and we're not tending the garden. And I would say, I think this falls primarily in the lap of the President, but this is a bipartisan preoccupation. Both parties are preoccupied in the Middle East, and we need to address this urgently, or a variety of these issues, I think, will not get the kind of attention that we need.
Second point, if I may. I liked very much President DeMuth's opening comments about the criticism about what we've seen vis-à-vis President Chen's agenda. But his language is carefully crafted. He said it's been criticized by American diplomats, as if somehow American diplomats—that there's this group that is somehow not part of the US government, not part of the Bush administration, and that if only we could get these guys under control… I think we have to step up to the plate, and we can all acknowledge here, this is being criticized by the Bush administration, right? The Bush administration! And so I think actually one of the most important things that can occur right now is to rebalance the domestic, sort of, power issues within the US government. I would like to see Congress play a little bit more active a role on these issues. They've not—they've been absent, sorry Congressman, generally—
Rohrabacher (interjects): I'm right here! Haha.
Campbell:—over the last six or seven years, absent as an institution. And now, really, it's on the Democrats: to hold more hearings, to call the administration to task, to ask them to explain, "What are your goals and ambitions vis-à-vis the Asia-Pacific, and also what do you want to accomplish vis-à-vis the cross-straits?"
Third and final point, and then I have a question quickly, Dan. The third and final point is that if you sum up, and basically characterize what is the nature of the message that we have sent Taiwan over the last, basically since 2001—and let's remember that although we have not said it enough publicly: Thank you President Chen, for the support that Taiwan has given us in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in a variety of places. Now, we just have not said that enough. But the truth is that Taiwan was one of the first countries to come up to the plate and said, "We want to assist you. We want to assist you." We did not ask. They volunteered. That's an important point and it's something we should be grateful of.
Our essential policy point to Taiwan is this: We support your freedom, we will help in assisting and protecting you, but we're incredibly busy. We've got a lot of stuff going on in the world and we don't want you to make a fuss. And you've got to basically not create problems for us elsewhere. Now I think that those talking points could be fairly and effectively deployed for about a year after 2001. But the fact is that that is the essential, distilled version of the message that we give Taiwan on a consistent basis. I think it's no longer applicable; and unfortunately, I think we're heading into one of those periods that we're going to need a much more significant review of the foundations of our policy, the United States towards Taiwan.
I think that it makes sense, it's in American interests, to increase our dialogue and our communication with Taiwan for no other reason than to prevent misunderstandings or difficulties. I'm struck by how convoluted of late the policy communication is between Taipei and Washington. I'd like us to focus more on a more positive set of agenda items. It strikes me that it seems rather negative at this context, and I'd like to see a little bit more positive. And so this comes at a difficult time, in which candidates are going to be saying things—probably raising unrealistic expectations. But the fact remains that we're going to need a much more systematic look, hopefully a bipartisan look, at how to manage the Taiwan Straits, and also how to support a friend in Taiwan.
Last point: I would just like to ask the President a question. President Chen—and again, we appreciate your opportunity to spend time with us—have any countries in the Asia-Pacific region communicated to you privately, or given you any support, or suggested that they too are concerned by this turn of events? Because I was also moved by some of the points that Congressman Rohrabacher made about Secretary General Ban Ki-moon exceeding some of what, some view, are the prerogatives of his responsibility.
Again, thank you, and thanks to Dan for the opportunity to be here.
Blumenthal: Thank you very much, and again, President Chen is gracious enough to wait to answer all the question bundled together. So, Dr. Green.
Dr. Michael Green, Center for Strategic and International Studies: Thank you Dan, and thank you Chris. I also want to join Kurt in applauding AEI for organizing this. There are well-known policy restrictions on our high-level engagement with Taiwan, and often using technology in this way allows us to have the kind of substantive dialogue we need, as you know, Mr. President, from some of your phone calls with senior officials like J. D. Crouch of the NSC [US National Security Council] or the Deputy Secretaries of State and Defense. And I think AEI has been creative, and really helped our friendship and our policy dialogue with this forum.
I also thought of a musical, and I imagine everybody's going to have their favorite musical. For me, it was Fiddler on the Roof, and the scene when the old couple is alone and the husband turns to the wife and says, "Do you love me?" And then she says, "Do I love you? For 25 years I've mended your socks, I've cooked your food." And the reality is, as Kurt has suggested, we have some difficulties now between Taipei and Washington, but the record between our two peoples and our governments is very strong, and Kurt is right to thank you and to thank Taiwan and the people of Taiwan, for helping in places as far away from Taiwan as Afghanistan, as Iraq. And I know that you appreciate that President Bush or Secretary Rice or others have stood very firm in meetings with Chinese leaders—I can tell you, I was there—have stood very firm in standing by our commitments to Taiwan, and in ensuring that Beijing does not unilaterally change the status quo. Some very tough encounters behind closed doors with Chinese leaders on these issues. And that's because we have, in the United States, a very real strategic interest in the success of Taiwan as a democracy.
The US and Japan, in 2005, said that our two countries have a shared strategic objective of stability in the Taiwan Strait. It's more than just geography, it's more than just stability—we have a shared stake in the success of Taiwan's democracy, because this is something that is watched around the region, and watched, frankly, by 1.3 billion people in China, who see the rule of law and democratic experience working in Taiwan.
As Kurt said, we have had an increasingly negative tone to our bilateral dialogue, and I think we need to think harder about a positive agenda, and there are items that I would put forward, I'd appreciate your reaction when you speak to us at the end of our panel. It seems to me that a free trade agreement between the United States and Taiwan is in the interests of both countries. We have an interest in having a gold standard FTA with a free market economy in the center of Northeast Asia; our businesses have an interest in a bastion based on the rule of law where they can engage the region, including China. And of course, Taiwan has an interest in locking itself into this broader Asian trade architecture.
I agree with Kurt. I think we need to find ways to elevate our official dialogue. There have been efforts in the Congress to force the administration to allow flag rank officers to travel to Taiwan. From my perspective, those are largely symbolic. What's really important is allowing policy officials to have more direct, free, and open discussion for all of the reasons that Kurt discussed. I think we can do a lot more together on democracy promotion. Taiwan and the US both spend a lot of money in foreign aid and we can help governments improve their governance, improve their democratic institutions if we coordinate more.
But I think to move to this positive agenda we each have to do our homework. It will be difficult to do some of these things in the current environment. But I think they are realistic, possible, and in our interests if we make efforts on each side. I think for the US side, we need to recognize that the issue of identity in Taiwan is not a political game. It is not a tactical move in Taipei. It is a very fundamental issue—not at all unique to the 23 million people on Taiwan. If you look at Korea, if you look at Japan, national identity is at the top of the agenda for every country in Asia and there's no reason why Taiwan should be any different. And I think that the US, both government and scholars, need to appreciate that. Not always look at this as an issue of tactics or politics, recognize that it is fundamental to the future of Taiwan; and the US has an interest in this and a stake, and it should be concerned and interested in it. On the Taiwan side, I think there is homework as well. I think there needs to be more thought given to what agenda for Taiwan will strengthen support for Taiwan's democracy, strengthen support for Taiwan's security. I think Taiwan has very good friends. We're here in Washington but I think in Japan you have good friends. You have friends elsewhere in Asia and in Europe. It seems to me that any agenda for Taiwan should be designed to strengthen these partnerships among democratic nations and societies and pull us closer together. It reinforces the example of Taiwan's democracy for the people on the mainland and it enhances Taiwan's security and it seems to me that we need to think carefully about whether specific agenda items like applying to the UN under the name "Taiwan." And that's a complex issue and there are nuances to it. And I can see many of the merits of what you are saying, but I think it is important that we, in the interests not only of stability but of the success of Taiwan's democracy and identity, think about the best way to advance that: ways that will bond the people of Taiwan with their natural friends and allies in countries like the US and Japan. But that's going to require high level discussion—panels like this. I very much appreciate your presentation, Mr. President. As Kurt said, you have been a very good friend to the United States. I think you've raised some very important points that people in this town sometimes forget about the nature of the Chinese military threat, about the intentions demonstrated in the Anti-Secession Law, the failings at the UN, and the consequences of what the Secretary-General has done and these are all things that we will take to heart and endeavor to help you and the people of Taiwan correct. But thank you very much and I look forward to your response to our questions and I also look forward to hearing you sing Man of La Mancha or whatever Broadway musical seems appropriate. Thank you.
Blumenthal: Thank you very much, Dr. Green. This would be good time for me to shamelessly plug a report of the kind that Mike Green and Kurt Campbell are talking about, that AEI is working on with Armitage International—that will be bipartisan and looking at a positive agenda with Taiwan—that should come out in the beginning of next year. And President Chen has been very cooperative with that as well. Let us turn to Dr. Wang, who actually has written quite a bit about Taiwan and the UN and international organizations, and we look forward to his comments.
Dr. Vincent Wei-cheng Wang, Associate Professor, University of Richmond: Thank you. I want to thank the AEI for this opportunity and applaud AEI for organizing this video conferencing. Good evening, Mr. President. Dan Zongtong, li ho [hello in Taiwanese]. I was born and raised in Kaohsiung, so it is very like homecoming for me, even though I can only see you virtually. I agree with Doctors Campbell and Green that there should be more need for more substantive, more positive dialogue between the US and Taiwan. I also agree with Dr. Green that understanding Taiwan's domestic politics will help the United States appreciate Taiwan's democracy a little bit more, improving bilateral relationship. But I want to share with you a few of my thoughts about Taiwan's international participation. About 13 years ago, I wrote an article about the issue of Taiwan's entry into the United Nations and in that article I highlighted six different models. Taiwan could enter the UN either as "exclusive representation," in other words repeal Resolution 2758. The second model would be the "new state" model. The third model would be "parallel representation" like what the Koreas and the Germanys used to be. The fourth model is the "ADB [Asian Development Bank], APEC" model, essentially a "one China, one Taiwan" model. The fifth model is a "Soviet Union" model, namely one country but several seats. And finally is the "Vietnam" model, namely one seat for one unified country. The Taiwanese government since 1993 until this year seemed to have adopted an agnostic approach. [It] was mum about what approach to take. Starting from this year it seems that you are pushing for a "new state" model.
I have written another article, about two years ago, trying to develop a new model for Taiwan's international participation. It is based on some basic ideas. One is that in this era of globalization, functional competency has replaced the importance of sovereignty, and also Taiwan, due to its functional importance, can actually play a very important role in the international community. So I actually mentioned four points [with] this model. I was wondering if you could care to comment. The first point is to decouple, to separate the issue of Taiwan's international governmental organization participation and diplomatic recognition. In other words, we take Taiwan's international participation at its face value but at the same time we don't challenge the PRC's [People's Republic of China] position on Taiwan. So we try to find a way for Taiwan to have meaningful representation in IO's [international organizations]. Second point actually is to amend those charters and constitutions of international government organizations that allegedly only admit sovereign states so that they can also admit a functionally competent entity in a particular area, for example, fishing, or finance, or humanitarian assistance, and so on. So, all they have to do is to add one sentence that membership is open to sovereign states and a functional competent entity in a particular area. The third point is that to state on Taiwan's entry document that admission into a given IGO—intergovernmental organization—does not have any impact on that body's position on the issue of China representation or imply sovereignty for Taiwan. However, this condition does not prevent other members from recognizing Taiwan, either. And finally, stipulating in the documents that Taiwan will automatically lose membership if it declares independence after its entry into the intergovernmental organizations. Because this is again to make good on Taiwan's promise or aspiration to have meaningful representation in international organizations but at the same time to basically sidestep the issue of sovereignty.
I want to leave with two questions. One is that the US has been very supportive of Taiwan. Maybe some people in Taiwan feel that it could do more, but in terms of international participation, we know that, in the past, US support has been crucial in the case of APEC, in the case of WTO. It seems that without the US support—and of course, the PRC was not a member in either organization when Taiwan joined. So these two conditions, [first] Taiwan and PRC join at the same time or the PRC does not precede Taiwan, and [second] the US support[s Taiwan's participation] seemed to be a pattern and I wonder if the same pattern will hold for future participation. My question is: What concrete steps do you have in order to repair the US-Taiwan relations—as Doctors Campbell and Green mentioned, the positive agenda—and what expectations do you have for the next US administration either Republican or Democratic. Thank you very much, and good evening.
Blumenthal: Thank you very much for those comments and questions. Dr. Gary Schmitt.
Dr. Gary Schmitt, AEI: Mr. President, thank you for joining us and good evening. When you began to talk about or began to mention the Man of La Mancha and the song, I guess I began to show my age a bit and thought of another song which was, the words were, "You don't always get what you want. But if you try sometime, you get what you need." For those of you who are younger than me, that comes from Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones. I actually prefer that song too, because the Man of La Mancha, actually, the bottom line is that he never gets what he wants. Let me begin by just stepping back a little bit, and I have been struck by, as Chris DeMuth mentioned, the rolling crisis that we seem to be in. But I think that the perversity of the current situation is really quite striking. We have a situation in which obviously there is a great deal of tension in the US over Taiwan's decision to go forward on a referendum, tension in the Taiwan Strait, and obviously a lot of discussion going back and forth between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington.
Nevertheless, I am struck by the degree by which all the focus is on what Taiwan is doing, and, in fact, if you stepped back and thought about it for half a second, in fact, you would say that Taiwan is behaving as you would expect a normal democratic state to behave and is doing precisely what you would want a so-called responsible stakeholder to do.
In contrast, the state, the country, that we hardly or the country that we constantly refer to as trying to become a responsible stakeholder is behaving in just the opposite way. It continues to threaten Taiwan with military force, its rhetoric is nothing but non-peaceful, and on top of which it behaves toward Taiwan as though in an irredentist, 19th century manner. You know, if tomorrow we found out that Berlin was looking, or cabled the government in Paris, and said, "You know, we'd really like to revisit Alsace, we really think it belongs to us again," we wouldn't tolerate that for half a second. But somehow, we've come to accept China's claim toward Taiwan as though that's a normal thing. And I think, again, stepping back for half a second, we realize just how perverse this situation has become.
Now, on the particulars, I just want to say that nothing actually precludes the US from accepting Taiwan's effort. The nine-point document that the State Department developed, sent to the UN in response to the Secretary-General's recent comments, the very first point is quote, "We take no position on the status of Taiwan. We neither accept nor reject the claim that Taiwan is a part of China." In short, the United States is agnostic and there is no particular reason why UN membership infringes upon that agnosticism.
The second thing is that in fact, from US policy point of view, [i.e. the] one-China policy, UN membership for Taiwan doesn't foreclose future questions about Taiwan's ultimate status. So again, there's nothing in US policy per se, that precludes or should foreclose Taiwan trying to get into the UN. And in fact, as our good professor remarked, the US in the past has accepted states into the UN that it didn't recognize at the time. After all, North Korea is in the UN right now, but we don't recognize North Korea diplomatically. East Germany joined the UN a full year before we gave it diplomatic recognition.
Next, there is nothing in the UN resolution that forecloses Taiwan's membership in the UN. Twenty-seven fifty-eight, as the president pointed out, does not mention Taiwan or its status. And finally, this question of use of the name "Taiwan" shouldn't also foreclose, or be such a problem. There are plenty of states in the UN right now that use names that aren't their official names. That includes China, Greece, and Macedonia. So the use of the term Taiwan should not be seen as an aggressive move on the part of the Republic of China.
Now, to wrap up, I think one key reason that to begin to step back a moment and take a look at the situation, the key reason for our current predicament is that, as Kurt and others have pointed out, the US, this administration, has done an extremely poor job of trying to provide Taiwan with international space. We have given it very much half-hearted support for membership in the WHO; we have done nothing to move forward on an FTA. And, in fact, when the Secretary-General made his remarks recently that Taiwan was a part of China, the US State Department response was quite tepid. We still have not forced the Secretary-General to change his remarks or correct his remarks.
In short, while Taiwan is often accused of trying to change the status quo with this referendum, the reality is that the status quo is being moved on it. It is being moved by China and it is being moved by a passive United States response to the pressure that the Chinese have put forward. So I'll end there.
Blumenthal: Well, thank all of you very much. President Chen, you made everyone disclose their favorite musicals. I think Mike Green is spot on with Fiddler on the Roof, but the right song probably describing our policy is "Tradition," not the other one and unfortunately, it's tradition that may have to be updated in the next administration. But anyway, thank you for graciously listening to our comments and to our questions. And I'd like to turn it back over to you to respond any way you wish. Thank you, Mr. President.
(Having listened to the comments of the participants, the President responded as follows):
President Chen Shui-bian: I would like to thank each of the participants for your report and many valuable opinions. First, Congressman Rohrabacher said that he and his colleagues plan to boycott the 2008 Beijing Olympics, that Taiwan has the right to UN participation, and that the Chiang Kai-shek regime did not represent the people of China or Taiwan. In response to your comment about boycotting the Olympics and hoping that Taiwan will not send a delegation to Beijing, I must stress that our primary concern is the issue of participation in the Olympic Games. In particular, when Taiwan's delegation participates in the Beijing Olympics, we do not want to see Taiwan's status downgraded. Additionally, the passing of the Olympic Torch through Taiwan is a sports event that should not be politicized or used as part of Beijing's united front tactics. We have worked hard with great sincerity to smooth out this issue. Our Olympic Committee has been frank and forthright in its communication with the Beijing Olympic Committee. We hope that this issue will be resolved. We welcome the Olympic Torch to pass through Taiwan, on the condition that Taiwan's status absolutely must not be downgraded. This is exceedingly important. We thank Congressman Rohrabacher for your encouragement and support that Taiwan should remain firm and steadfast, for what we pursue is not an impossible dream. We too believe that as long as we do the right things and go down the right path, we will one day succeed.
We would also like to thank Dr. Campbell for raising an important issue. You mentioned that the United States should not only focus on the Middle East and neglect Asia. Moreover, the focus on Asian issues should not be limited to the Korean Peninsula, as the issue of the Taiwan Strait deserves equal consideration. Furthermore, the Taiwan issue not only concerns China on the other side of the Taiwan Strait. As the 23 million people of Taiwan are also part of the democratic community to which President Bush attaches great importance, they hope to be treated equally. Dr. Campbell also mentioned how crucial balance is, and that America's focus of attention should be balanced. If, for instance, the administrative branch tilts toward China, the American Congress should step up to the plate, play its proper role, and fulfill its duties. I think Dr. Campbell's suggestions are very valuable and that all parties involved would do well to note them.
For a long time, it seems that Taiwan has been seen as cooperative and obedient by the United States. But just because Taiwan has been America's most loyal ally, and has long stood with the American government and people on a host of issues, doesn't mean the United States should take this for granted and ignore Taiwan's needs. We have been neglected in many areas. Is this because Taiwan has been too obedient and too cooperative for the past decade? Our being ignored has forced us to reflect on the past and ask what went wrong.
I also want to thank Dr. Green for speaking to substantive dialogue. Taiwan and the US are faithful friends to one another. The two sides should engage in substantive dialogue. We very much appreciate Dr. Green's contributions as Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and Senior Director for Asian Affairs at the National Security Council. During his time in these positions, relations between Taiwan and the US were very cordial and close. That was mainly because we had very good channels of communication and substantive high-level dialogues. We lack these now. Who is responsible for this?
We have time and again called on the US to strengthen dialogue between the top officials of our two countries. The best channel for communication is not the US State Department or via the Director of the Taipei Office of the American Institute in Taiwan. The reason why many issues have turned into problems might lie in this. Due to a lack of substantive dialogue between top officials and channels of communication, many unnecessary differing opinions and misunderstandings have come into being. For instance, our friends in the US executive branch believe that the issues of Taiwan's participation in the UN and the UN referendum are of my own making. They ask me to use my influence, and believe that if only I oppose it, the idea of a UN referendum will go away. They have consistently put pressure on me. As the US supports Taiwan's democratization, it should also respect the diversity of voices that exist in our democratic society. Some people think that we should enter the UN under the name "Taiwan," because we should not deceive ourselves as well as others, or repeat the mistakes of the past. In the past, no matter whether we tried to return to the UN using the name "Republic of China" or enter the UN using the name "Republic of China (Taiwan)", we failed, which shows that these approaches were wrong. We hope to adjust our strategy concerning entering the UN. We also hope to communicate with the US on this matter. It is wrong to think that this is solely my idea. It is the shared wish of a vast majority of the 23 million people on Taiwan. Being the president of a democratic country, I cannot oppose, nor can I ignore, the will of the people. I believe that President Bush understands fully that democratic countries deeply respect the will of the people. The UN Secretary-General's comment that Taiwan is a part of China simply does not accord with the facts and is not in line with UN Resolution 2758. Since UN Resolution 2758 does not even mention Taiwan, how can it be interpreted in such a way that Taiwan is a part of the People's Republic of China? I would like to express my gratitude to the United States for having taken notice of this. This also is inconsistent with the US's "one China" policy. This is something we would like to express heartfelt gratitude for.
Since the US considers maintaining the status quo in the Taiwan Strait as being in its own interest, as well as that of Taiwan's 23 million people, it is important for the governments of Taiwan and the US to sit down and discuss this. Were we to accept that Taiwan is a province or part of China, then we could just relinquish our sovereignty over Taiwan and surrender to China. As a consequence, we would worry about neither military procurement from the US nor diplomatic suppression from China. Obviously the US government would not allow that to happen. Therefore, since maintaining the status quo in the Taiwan Strait is in the interests of both Taiwan and the US, how is it wrong that we do not accept that Taiwan is a part of the People's Republic of China? Why has the US government chosen to sour relations between our peoples, instead of simply communicating with us?
Furthermore, I would like to thank Dr. Wang for your comments. We all understand that, without the US government's support, Taiwan would not have been able to become the 144th member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) just after China's entry. It is an incontrovertible fact that we would not have been admitted to the WTO without US support. Likewise for APEC. This year, I still have to send a special envoy as my representative to the APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting to be held in Sydney over the next few days. It's not fair to us, yet we have no choice but to accept and endure this unfair treatment, and yet we are still grateful to the US government for having supported Taiwan's admission to APEC.
In terms of our WHO bid, it is very clear that the US government supports Taiwan to become an observer in the World Health Assembly (WHA), albeit as a "health entity." We are willing to compromise to apply for WHA observership in this way. But eleven years have gone by, and we still have not succeeded. In 2005, the US government expressed its support for Taiwan's "meaningful participation" in the WHO. But in July of the same year, China and the WHO Secretariat secretly signed a memorandum of understanding to demote Taiwan's status to that of a local government of China.
We feel that "meaningful participation" has turned into "meaningless participation." The US government has shown great concern over our participation and has desired to help Taiwan. But of our 11 years of trying, including my seven years in office, there has been nothing but painful failure. If you were Taiwan's president, if you were Taiwan's government, if you were Taiwan's people, would you continue to tolerate this? Wouldn't you want to say something? Indeed, we have already waited too long. Should we continue to wait?
Of course, we are in hopes that the newly elected US president next year, no matter Republican or Democrat, will continue to support Taiwan. And I also have one hope that, no matter which party takes power, it will not hold back its support for Taiwan. I remember that former President George H.W. Bush only decided to sell Taiwan F-16 fighter jets during the last year of his term. Though these were F-16 A/Bs, we were very pleased. As enhancing Taiwan's national defense was considered to be of great importance and the sale of fighter jets was to be made, why did the president wait until his last year in office to approve a sale that had been long before requested by Taiwan?
We hope such a scenario will not occur under the current President Bush. We have finally gained the support of our Legislature for a defense budget to purchase F-16 C/Ds. This was not an easy task. But this budget was approved and the Legislature required us to get the Letter of Offer and Acceptance from the United States by the end of October. However, the information we have received indicates that President Bush has decided to approve the sale of F-16 C/Ds only after May 20 of next year, after Taiwan's new president has taken office. If enhancing Taiwan's national defense and consolidating its defense capabilities are considered to be of such importance, why can't the sale be approved now if it can be approved next year? So whichever party takes power next year, we look for the new administration not to have any reservations in its support for Taiwan. I hope that the things I have just touched upon will provoke discussion.
Of course, we greatly appreciate Dr. Schmitt's suggestions and opinions, in which you indicated particularly that using a country's national moniker is not a requirement when applying for UN membership. We have found that around 40 percent of the more than 190 members of the United Nations are not using their national moniker as their name when participating in the organization. Therefore, the issue that my country would like to enter the United Nations using the name "Taiwan" definitely does not involve a change in our national moniker. As such, I am not breaking my oft-repeated "four noes" pledge to President Bush, the US government, or the international community. Neither previous pledges nor the status quo are being affected here.
Dr. Schmitt also pointed out the responses the US State Department made concerning the remarks of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon with regard to our bid to join the UN. In fact, the US government was right in responding as it did to this. However, we do not wish to see it behave in such a secretive manner. When it has differences with Taiwan, the US expresses its criticisms and opposition openly. But when it comes to differences of opinion with China, it tends to express its reservations under the table, out of the public eye. This contrast is very apparent to the 23 million people of Taiwan, and we regret it deeply. We want to be treated fairly.
Mr. Harvey Feldman, one of the architects of the Taiwan Relations Act, visited Taiwan recently. He intimated that according to the Act, Taiwan is a country. With the exceptions of appointing an ambassador and establishing an embassy, the United States recognizes that Taiwan is a country separate from China. Besides this, he indicated that according to the Act, Taiwan is allowed to participate in international organizations, including the WHO and UN. This is what Harvey Feldman told me yesterday at our meeting. We are very thankful for this. As Confucius said, "The virtuous will not be alone." Thank you very much.
Blumenthal: Thank you very much, Mr. President. We will now have time for just a few questions. And I'd like to, with the President's permission, take three questions all at once, and have the President respond at one time as well. Questions?
Marina Malenic, Inside Defense: Hello. My name is Marina Malenic with Inside Defense. And I'd like to ask you, President Chen, you mentioned F-16 sales. Can you please also comment on PAC-3 sales and why it's important for your country to acquire that system, also where that situation stands?
Foster Klug, Associated Press: Mr. President, Foster Klug with the Associated Press. I was hoping to figure out if, in your estimation, this UN referendum is going to be worth it, considering the anger that it's creating in the US and in China, and considering that it's largely a symbolic effort on Taiwan's part, with a very little chance of actually going through the UN. Thanks.
Gregory Ho, Radio Free Asia: Gregory Ho from Radio Free Asia. Mr. Chen, I just wonder, what do you comment on the Chinese President Hu Jintao's recent remarks on the role of the Chinese PLA and enforcing the role of unifying Taiwan? What is your response to the Chinese president's comment on Taiwan? Thank you.
Blumenthal: [And now] over to you, Mr. President for your responses.
President Chen: Strengthening our national defense and enhancing our self-defense capabilities are both our duty and responsibility. For many years, we have not backed down from our commitment. The 2007 defense budget was increased to 2.85 percent of GDP, and we hope to increase it to 3 percent for 2008. In the defense budget for 2008 currently being drafted for submission to the Legislative Yuan, we are looking at an increase of NT$40 billion such that we may reach our goal of 3 percent of GDP. This demonstrates our will and determination.
We are very grateful for President Bush's having approved at one time the sale of three major weapons systems to Taiwan. It is to be regretted that the budget for purchasing these systems stalled in the Legislative Yuan for several years. But through a concerted effort, we finally broke the deadlock in June and July of this year, when part of the budget to fund upgrades to the PAC-2 Patriot missiles and purchase P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft was passed. These are essential for strengthening Taiwan's national defense.
Similarly, the main reason for purchasing F-16 C/D jet fighters is that the F-5 series fighters we currently have need to be replaced. We hope to replace them with F-16 C/D jet fighters. With so many points of view represented in the Legislative Yuan, gaining support is no easy task. We hope that the US government will recognize and respond positively to our efforts, so that our hard-won defense budget will not have to be returned to the treasury at the end of October.
Moreover, the main reason for holding a referendum on applying for UN membership is that we know the consensual view is for differences and disputes between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait to be resolved peacefully through dialogue. This includes issues such as the status quo in the Taiwan Strait will not be changed unilaterally. The most obvious and peaceful means, of course, is to engage in dialogue and consultation. We cannot rely solely on weapons. Values, our democratic values, are far more important. We must avoid a unilateral or militarily induced change to the status quo. We must avoid there being put forward a proposal in the UN to change the status quo unilaterally or to make Taiwan part of the People's Republic of China, as these go beyond the scope of UN Resolution 2758. Given moves in these directions, Taiwan's 23 million people must speak out and express our views to the outside world. We will use neither force nor military power. We will use instead love and democratic ballots, that is, a referendum.
The 23 million people of Taiwan should have the right to express their opinion with regard to Taiwan's future, Taiwan destiny, and especially cross-strait relations. They should even enjoy the right to say "no" to China. This is what referenda are for. They are legitimate and necessary. A patient explanation is required to show that referenda have more than symbolic value, that we believe referenda to have a substantive function and convey substantive meaning.
Even more importantly, regarding our internal situation, we all understand that for a nation to be safe today, its people must be united. The single issue of arms procurement from the US has aroused such a divergence of opinion: Should we purchase US arms? How many? Do we agree to pay for this? How much shall we pay? People have different opinions. Why? Because many people are doubtful: Is Taiwan a country? Should we have our own self-defense capabilities or would it be better for us to become part of China? That way, we wouldn't need diplomatic relations, we wouldn't need a defense capability, and therefore, we wouldn't need to purchase any weapons at all.
With regard to the issue of UN membership, we have finally arrived at a consensus [domestically], which is to participate in the international community and to become as a member of international organizations such as the UN. The US government, the people of the United States, and the US Congress should give all the more greater encouragement and support to Taiwan in this respect, as it is the best and most democratic way to prevent a unilateral change to the status quo. Not the sound of guns, not the use of force, but rather a democratic vote for self-defense.