The United Nations and Taiwan's Democracy: A Dialogue with President Chen Shui-bian
Office of the President
Republic of China (Taiwan)
September 13, 2007
At the Presidential Office this afternoon, President Chen Shui-bian exchanged views via a videoconference with members of the European Parliament. The theme of the videoconference was "The United Nations and Taiwan's Democracy: A Dialogue with President Chen Shui-bian." After introductions by e-Parliament Secretary-General Nicholas Dunlop, the President delivered his opening remarks. The floor was then opened to questions by Dutch MEP Bastiaan Belder, Portuguese MEP Paulo Casaca, Luxembourg MEP Astrid Lulling, Polish MEP Konrad Szymanski, British MEP Charles Tannock, and British MEP Graham Watson, which the President answered in succession. At the end of the conference, the President delivered a summation.
[President Chen's Opening Remarks:]
Secretary-General Dunlop, Moderator of the Conference; Honorable Members of the European Parliament and Panelists; Friends from the Media; Ladies and Gentlemen:
Good morning! It is a great pleasure to have this opportunity to join in conversations with our good friends in the European Parliament (EP) through videoconference and exchange views on "the United Nations and Taiwan's democracy" and other relevant issues. First of all, I would like to convey my heartfelt appreciation for your enthusiastic participation. I have been the President of Taiwan for over seven years now. During which the only occasion I have been allowed to visit the beautiful continent of Europe was a brief visit to Vatican City to attend the funeral mass of Pope John Paul II. Apart from that trip, I have been completely deprived of any opportunity to visit Europe. Although my government and myself have long been treated so unfairly, the European Parliament has always remained the most supportive and best friend to Taiwan. This firmly demonstrates the deep friendship and bonding between the 27 EU member states and its 493 million citizens and the 23 million people of Taiwan. It also underlines our shared faith in the universal values of freedom, democracy, human rights and justice.
Since the year 2000, the European Parliament has passed many resolutions favorable to Taiwan including: calling for the European Commission to set up an office in Taiwan; appealing to members of the European Union to issue visas to the President and government officials of Taiwan for private visits to Europe; resolutely objecting to China's use of force against Taiwan and maintaining that any solution to the Taiwan Strait issue should come with the respect of the wish of the Taiwan people; supporting Taiwan's observership at the World Health Assembly; requesting China to remove the missiles deployed along its southeast coast targeting Taiwan and maintaining the EU arms embargo on China; passing the "Resolution on Relations between the EU, China and Taiwan, and security in the Far East" and clearly objecting to the so-called "Anti-secession Law" promulgated by China; reiterating time and again that Taiwan deserves better representation in the international arena and international organizations; and also reiterating that an end should be put to the current situation wherein the 23 million people of Taiwan are unreasonably excluded from the international community.
While some of these resolutions have already been put into effect, and some still require further progress, they all bring warmth to our hearts. We have an old proverb that says: "Virtue is not left to stand alone. He who practices it will have neighbors." EP's wholehearted support of the 23 million people of Taiwan underscores the respect that EU member states have for human dignity and human rights. Indeed, the European Parliament has set a fine example for the international society to follow. The past century of European history has proven that only by respecting the right of every nation to self-determination and development, regardless of its size or power, that lasting peace, happiness and prosperity can be achieved.
Taiwan is an independent sovereign state and its sovereignty vested in its 23 million citizens. Moreover, Taiwan is not, nor has ever been, a province or a part of the People's Republic of China. This is the reality. This is also the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. The principle of universality enshrined in the UN Charter gives Taiwan every right to apply for UN membership. Taiwan has long been excluded from the UN system, solely because of China's intimidation and suppression. The rights and interests of a small country are being sacrificed due to the belligerent acts of a larger nation. How is our situation any different from that of many European countries prior to World War II? Denying Taiwan's rights to participate in the UN and threatening Taiwan's survival in the international community are by no means a sign of progress in history, but rather, a giant step backward for civilization. As one of the most sacred bastions of democracy on your continent, the European Parliament has the obligation to continue safeguarding the universal values of freedom, democracy, human rights, peace and justice. It should stand up in defense of these values and speak up for Taiwan. It should take actions to rectify such injustice and mistakes of making concessions to China and tilting to China's favor.
On July 20 of this year, I sent a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and attached our letter of application to join the UN under the name "Taiwan." However, my letter was returned, with the Secretariat's reply misinterpreting UN Resolution 2758 and stating that, "Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China." In fact, Taiwan was not mentioned in the Resolution, which was adopted on October 25, 1971. The Resolution neither called Taiwan a province of the PRC nor acknowledged China's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan. Taiwan was never mentioned in the Resolution. In regards to such a distortion by the UN Secretariat, the US and Japan have requested through diplomatic channels that the Secretariat rectify its mistake. I sincerely urge the European Parliament to follow suit by admonishing the Secretariat for its ungrounded interpretation of Taiwan's sovereignty and abusive of power.
According to the UN Charter and the rules of procedure of the Security Council and the General Assembly, any membership application should be reviewed and decided by the Security Council and the General Assembly. The Secretariat does not have the authority or power to decide on such matters. Three of the seven panelists today come from the United Kingdom, a permanent member of the Security Council. The UN Secretariat's abuse of power and mishandling of Taiwan's application has infringed upon the authority of the Security Council and the General Assembly--something that shouldn't be tolerated and neglected. I sincerely hope that the 15 members of the Security Council and the other member states will stand up for their rights and interests and for defending the principal of universality. Member countries should also insist on giving Taiwan a fair chance and allow the application to be reviewed in a just and reasonable manner. Let Taiwan be warmly welcomed as a new UN member, one whose admittance would carry great historical significance.
In closing, I want to thank our wonderful host and panelists for their enthusiastic participation and unswerving support of Taiwan. I am confident that together we can create a free, democratic, peaceful and happy future for the humankind. My best wishes for your good health and every success. Thank you.
[End of President Chen's opening remarks]
MEP Bestiaan Belder: Thank you very much, Mr. President. It is a privilege and pleasure to speak again with you on Taiwan's legitimate position and place in this world. Allow me to pose questions concerning three topics. Taiwan's application to the UN: My question vis-à-vis the issue is how do you view the attitude, the non-positive attitude towards this application from your ally, the United States, and how to cope with this? Do you perhaps foresee consequences on Article 8 of the anti-secession law of March 2005 from Beijing's side?
The second issue is regional peace and security in East Asia. Of course, your country, Taiwan, also wants and decides to promote regional peace and security. But you have also the electoral year—2008. How do you plan to cope with the heat of the electoral year and promote regional peace and security? What are the several positions? I studied a lot… have a more deepened view of what was going on in internal Taiwan politics, but it has, of course, also consequences.
And then, on the EU-Taiwan relationship. I was much impressed by an article in the famous French newspaper… a leading opinion article of an English translation "Speechless in China." The point was that the writer said, and he had the courage to say, that we Europeans find ourselves courageous when we have the courage to speak openly to the Chinese leadership, as Bundeschancellor Merkel. But it is shameful… our democratic principles in the international arena. So Europe should not be speechless towards the legitimate interests of Taiwan, towards the People's Republic of China. My experience as a draftsman for this Parliament on… is that the European Commission, as it is representative, and your country have a sort… and a positive stance towards your country. Parliament, you said it already. But my concern is the position, the stance of the European member states. The Council is in a very powerful position. How can we make them less speechless towards China? Thank you very much.
President Chen: Thank you Mr. Belder for your remarks. First, I believe that the US remains a staunch ally of Taiwan. The US is most definitely not our adversary. Rather, it is Taiwan's best friend, and a friend forever. We highly value the long-established friendship of the United States. As such, we pay attention to the concerns the US government expressed recently and what it has said regarding US strategic interests. We understand, attach importance to, and respect these comments. But we also feel that the call of the 23 million people of Taiwan to join the UN should be heard and heeded by the global democratic community, including the US.
We do not demand that everyone support Taiwan's entry into the UN, nor do we ask for affirmation of our referendum. But we hope that we, the 23 million people of Taiwan, will stop being treated like international orphans. We hope, like every member state of the European Union, to become a member of the UN family. We do not wish to be UN outsiders; we do not want to continue to be treated as international orphans. We have taken notice of the US's concerns. We do care and we are thankful. But the issue is that when the US states publicly that "Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is not at this point a state in the international community," this is something the 23 million people of Taiwan view as extremely regrettable. It is not only not in keeping with the facts, it is also unacceptable to our 23 million people.
Taiwan is most definitely a state. A sovereign state. Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to the 23 million people of Taiwan, not to the 1.3 billion people of China. This country—whether you call it "Taiwan" or the "Republic of China"—and the People's Republic of China have, for a long time, been independent of one another. Neither is subordinate to the other. We are two different countries. Today we absolutely have the right and obligation to join the UN. We should not be afraid because of China and its objections, boycotts, or threats.
People are concerned because the Taiwanese people want to participate in the UN. We only wish to express our thoughts and let our voice be heard. Yet China warns Taiwan's 23 million people to shut up. It tells Taiwan it cannot speak or even move, or else face attack. It has a thousand missiles on its shores, and is ready to attack Taiwan at any time. Making threats with a gun in one hand, China uses its other hand to push Taiwan into a corner. It is strangling Taiwan's 23 million people, ordering us to be quiet and stop breathing.
[What would you do] today if you were the people or the president of Taiwan? Should we, under China's military threat, hold up the white flag or hide? When China tells us to stop breathing and not to speak out, should we be afraid to say "no"? I am certain that all members of the European Parliament, being representatives of democratic governments, can empathize with the 23 million people of Taiwan. The European Parliament passed a resolution objecting to China's passage of its so-called anti-secession law. This was also why the European Parliament passed several resolutions [calling for the European Union] not to lift its arms embargo against China. Let me tell you that we were very moved by this.
As Confucius said, "The virtuous will never be alone." We believe that when China moves to intimidate us with Article 8 of its so-called anti-secession law, which the European Parliament had opposed, it constitutes a military threat. As members or people of the democratic European community, can you stand by and watch as Taiwan's 23 million people are subject to China's military threat, to Beijing's threat to act upon the so-called anti-secession law, to attack and invade Taiwan on the slightest excuse? Can the world continue to let the Taiwanese people stand alone? I am certain that the European Parliament will step out and join us in condemning, refuting, and objecting to China's actions. China absolutely has no right to employ force, military threats, or its so-called anti-secession law against the 23 million innocent people of Taiwan.
In 1996, when Taiwan held its first direct presidential election, China test-fired missiles to try to influence the election's result. In March 1996, just a few days before voting day, China conducted two missile tests against Taiwan, hoping to intimidate the Taiwanese people into not voting for the candidates Beijing did not want to see elected. The nearest missile landed just 55 km off the coast of Taiwan. That close. However, did the 23 million people of Taiwan stop the democratic process of holding a direct presidential election because of China's military threats? No. The Taiwanese people stood up bravely and registered a very high turnout rate of more than 80 percent. This first direct presidential election in Taiwan's history did not come about easily in our move from authoritarianism to democracy. We refused to put down the sacred ballots we held in our hands. We were not influenced by China's missile threats.
The courageous Taiwanese are today appealing to the world to give us an opportunity to join the UN. You may disapprove, you may object, and you may withhold your support; but do not disappoint us by depriving us of the chance to speak out. Why can't we speak out? We want UN membership. We want to use our voice, take a democratic vote, and use the democratic procedure of a referendum to express the will and determination of the 23 million Taiwanese to join the UN. You may not support or you may object to this, but you have to give us a chance to speak out. This is how I feel about it and I hope you all understand.
I believe that safeguarding peace, security, and stability in the East Asia region is our duty and obligation. The Taiwanese people want their voice to be heard. They want UN membership. Such a direct expression of democracy is most certainly not a provocation, nor is it an unnecessary provocation. This issue is very clear.
MEP Paulo Casaca: Well, thank you. Mr. President, allow me to tell you that I am full-heartedly supportive of your stance and your position regarding the right of Taiwan to fully belong to the United Nations.
I would like to tell you that this is not only, and not mainly because you are the 47th largest country in the world, [have] 23 million people, [are] a very successful economic country and a very important economic partner with the European Union, but also because Taiwan is a democratic and peaceful country committed to progress. I never saw such a tolerant country before. Taiwan actually helped me to challenge my ideas of what we used to call "Western values," to be very frank with you. I have a deep admiration for your country. I think that you are the symbol of what is wrong with this realpolitik, which was started in 1971 exactly on Taiwan, and that later on moved to many other parts of the world with devastating effects. I would only like to ask you the following question: Don't you think that prior to any questions that the People's Republic is raising, one should ensure that there is a democratic, peaceful, respectful country, that is, of course, that the People's Republic should become that, prior to any discussion of union. If this would be so, and if both parts—of course if the People's Republic—would be ready to accept a "yes" or "no" (because [a country that] does not accept a "yes" or "no" is obviously not democratic), then in the future, a union could be discussed between the two countries.
President Chen: Thank you very much, Mr. Casaca, for your support of Taiwan's bid to enter the UN and for your compliments of Taiwan, which are a wonderful affirmation of Taiwan's status as a democratic and peaceful country.
Today, everyone understands what Taiwan should be proud of: while Taiwan has achieved an economic miracle, what is most amazing is the transition it has made from an authoritarian to a democratic country. Many people paid a high price for this along the way. Some sacrificed their lives, their freedom, and their wellbeing; others were put on a blacklist and forced to live in exile for decades. However, despite this, we did not give up in our pursuit of the universal values of democracy, freedom, human rights, peace, and justice. This is the common dream of the 23 million people of Taiwan. We have our dreams, we work towards them, and we hope that there will come a day when we will be able to fulfill them.
This year happens to be the 20th anniversary of the lifting of martial law in Taiwan, which means that a mere 20 years ago, Taiwan was still an authoritarian country that had been under martial law for 38 years and under the rule of one party for 50 years. There was no healthy party politics, and it was impossible to have a robust opposition party or political change.
At that time, the Parliament was made up of members elected for life. The president was not directly elected by the people and could also serve for life. So in theory, we could have had the same president and Parliament for an eternity. However, let us look back and see how far we have come today. In the past, there was political suppression under [the KMT's] authoritarian rule in Taiwan. The government refused to reform and democratize Taiwan, and the favorite excuse for this was: "Taiwan cannot be democratized or have party politics, it cannot have an opposition, and there can be no transfer of power from one party to another. We cannot hold referendums, elect a fixed-term Parliament, or directly elect the president. Why? Because China will attack."
Similarly, when Taiwan was in the process of democratization, China often said, "this is de jure independence; this is separatism; Taiwan is trying to be different from China." Yet intimidation from China and pressure from Taiwan's then ruling party [the KMT] were incapable of deterring the will and determination of Taiwan's 23 million people to pursue democracy, freedom, human rights, peace, and justice. We did make sacrifices, but we have no regrets. We are proud. Our democracy has set a good example for China's 1.3 billion people. We hope that China can become like Taiwan. We want to see China open up and become more democratic.
I believe that what is problematic today is not China's 1.3 billion people but the one-party authoritarian rule of the Communist Party of China (CPC). In any democracy, one-party rule is an impossibility. And in China, whereas an army should belong to the nation and serve the people, the so-called People's Liberation Army (PLA) is under the absolute command of the CPC and must defer to the party in all matters. The PLA is the army of the party, not the people. As democratic nations, this is hard for us to imagine.
We are concerned about China's oppression of Falun Gong, human rights lawyers, and people who want to practice their religion. The latest statistics show that more than five thousand people were sentenced to death and executed last year in China. The actual number is probably higher. All EU countries have abolished the death penalty. While death sentences were handed down in Taiwan last year, no executions were carried out. We have always looked up to world democracies, including EU member nations. But China has failed in this respect. Why? Because it is under one-party rule and has no democracy or freedom.
In Taiwan, we are very proud of our freedom of the press. Reporters Without Borders has ranked Taiwan first in Asia in terms of press freedom. Once, Taiwan was a country that was not free, ruled by an authoritarian government, and under martial law. And while today, under the rule of the Democratic Progressive Party and my administration, there is still room for improvement and debate, at least in regard to guaranteeing freedom of the press, Taiwan is ranked first in Asia. Taiwan is even ahead of Japan and the United States in global rankings, which is something to be proud of.
In contrast, China is ranked between 180 and 190 for press freedom, out of 190-plus countries. So it is one of the lowest-ranked countries in this regard.
Is it possible, in light of China's notorious human rights abuses, for Taiwan's 23 million people to agree to become a part of China? It is impossible for Taiwan to turn its back on democracy. We cherish what we have accomplished in terms of democratic development, and the progress of democracy cannot be reversed. Therefore, when China becomes a real democracy like Taiwan, the views of Taiwan's people may change.
Because Taiwan is a democratic country, the government respects the choice of our people. In regard to what the future holds for Taiwan and the people on the two sides of the Strait, and what kind of relations will be established between them, we will respect the final choice and decision of Taiwan's 23 million people.
However, for the time being, we do not believe the conditions are right for unification. It is impossible for the Taiwanese people to lead lives like those the people of China have to under the CPC's rule. We want to maintain our current way of life, a democratic way of life, which is the realization of our dream, and the life enjoyed by all the citizens of the EU. Thank you.
MEP Astrid Lulling: Thank you. Mr. President, may I say that I hope you will soon be able to visit another place in Europe than the Vatican. You know that one of the freedoms we are very much attached to in the European Union, and that we are proud of, is the freedom of free circulation of people. And I hope you shall enjoy it personally soon. As a member of the European Parliament Taiwan Friendship Group, I want to thank you for your appreciation concerning our work here, and the resolutions that we always succeed to pass with a great majority. We certainly have never disappointed you, and I can promise you we, at least around this table and in our different political groups, we shall do our utmost not to disappoint you in the future.
Now, I would like to say something about the People's Republic of China's intimidation and suppression. You know, I experienced it also this week, because some spokespeople from the Chinese embassy here wanted to make me abstain from discussing this, but you know, the freedom of discussion is something I'm very attached to. But returning to this intimidation, I cannot understand this intimidation because you don't experience it concerning Taiwanese investments in the People's Republic of China. There is a terrible contradiction in the position of the PRC, I tried to tell them, and "how can you explain this?" They accept hundreds of thousands of Taiwanese, they accept millions of Taiwanese investments, but this giant is not likely to stop its intimidation concerning the missiles. They said to me, they want peace. I said "if you want peace, you have to (put… a good… how shall I say this in English) have a good means of showing it. Withdraw the missiles from the Taiwan Strait!" Because that would be an example, a wonderful example, that really they want peace. And I hope we can make this clear, because the military threat of this giant is unacceptable. And I think it would suit this giant very well if they did this.
Now, concerning Taiwan's application to the United Nations that was turned down by the Secretary-General, I do share your concern that the Secretary-General should at least follow the UN rules of procedure regarding UN membership application, and the fact the Security Council and the General Assembly never got to have their say on this application of Taiwan is, for us, a big matter of concern. However, I feel that it is not up to me, from my small country. I’m not a member of the Security Council and will never be, but I hope the European Union will at some time. So I must say, I don't want to interfere directly, but as an MEP, we cannot turn a blind eye to what happened at the United Nations, and I can say that I think we should be vigilant and follow the actions of the UN, and particularly of the Secretary-General very closely in this respect.
Now, regarding Resolution 2758 that you mentioned, I share your interpretation that it does not form a legal basis for the exclusion of Taiwan from the UN. There are indeed no binding legal constraints preventing Taiwan from making an application, and, from my point of view, also from joining the UN as a full member. Having said that, I would like to point out that I still favor a cautious approach to that subject of Taiwan becoming a full UN member. Your country has indeed been very modest and pragmatic in the past in asking for adequate representation in organs affiliated with the UN, like the World Trade Organization and the World Health Organization. And this would mean only partial representation but it would be a start. Unfortunately, this wish has not become a reality mainly because of obstructions by the PRC.
Personally, I would like to see you and your country persist also on that line, because in my opinion it is, as I said, pragmatic and realistic. Full membership of the World Trade Organization would also result in a great benefit for Taiwan's economy. This is especially true regarding the protection of intellectual property rights, which would allow your country to directly apply for patents, and it would boost research and development. Taiwan's membership in the World Health Organization is also vital, and I cannot understand why the PRC is doing everything in their power to stop this process. World health is a matter of concern for the planet as a whole and the benefits of cooperation are mutual, also for them, because you are very close, I mean geographically.
Therefore, I believe that the European Parliament should advocate Taiwan's membership in the WTO and the WHO more strongly, and calling for full UN membership is desirable, it's your right, but unfortunately a little bit unrealistic, I'm afraid, in the current climate. But we all hope to change that climate. Thank you Mr. President.
President Chen: The 23 million people of Taiwan are kind and gentle in nature. They are also very pragmatic and responsible. This is the first time we have expressed our wish to join the UN under a new name, "Taiwan." If the 23 million people of Taiwan or their government were a troublemaker, we would not have been so obliging and acquiescent in the past. Now we have simply used the name "Taiwan"; we have not changed our national title, nor the status quo. Previously, we used the name "Chinese Taipei" to join APEC and "Special Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu" to become a member of the WTO. This time we have chosen the name "Taiwan" because everybody is familiar with this name and will not confuse it with China. Moreover, "Taiwan" is our most beautiful and also our most powerful name.
Many UN member nations joined the organization without using their national monikers. In fact, about 40 percent of the UN members did not use the constitutional name of the country. Why is it that other nations can do this and Taiwan cannot?
We all know China's military threat toward Taiwan. When I was elected president in 2000, China had 200 missiles targeted at Taiwan. Seven years have passed, and the number has grown five-fold to reach 988. The number of missiles continues to increase at a rate of 120 to 150 per year. My presidency is not the reason for China's missile deployment; rather, China aims to annex Taiwan. It does not care whether we are green [tending to favor independence] or blue [tending to favor unification]. Likewise, it is not because the DPP became the ruling party of Taiwan that China deployed its missiles. Long before I became president, China had initiated its missile deployment.
Although the former KMT government accepted the so-called "one China policy" and even the idea of ultimate unification between the two sides, China did not abandon its missile deployment vis-à-vis Taiwan.
A moment ago, I mentioned our first presidential election, which took place in 1996. At that time, China even test-fired missiles, one of which landed 55 km off the coast of Taiwan. This highlights China's underlying attitude toward Taiwan, namely, that Taiwan belongs to China, is a part of China, and that it is a regional province of the People's Republic of China or one of its special administrative regions. Therefore, China cannot allow Taiwan to become a nation, nor can it see Taiwan as a sovereign country, no matter what name we give it, including the name "Republic of China" which China so staunchly opposes.
This is a fact. And I want the world to know about it, in particular, the people of Europe. We all know that China's threats will become increasingly serious and ruthless. There is no way it will remove its missiles targeted at Taiwan. Far from it: it is increasing the number of missiles at a rate of 120 to 150 per year.
Despite China's belligerent rhetoric and saber-rattling, we have not halted economic and trade exchanges with China, or business cooperation and investment between the two sides of the Strait. Why? Because we consider these beneficial to our people's livelihoods. However, during such exchanges, we also remind the people of Taiwan, in particular, Taiwanese businesspeople, to pay special attention to the political and economic risks posed by China's military threat and its enmity toward Taiwan. Otherwise, we will see situations like the recent disputes between the Shin Kong Group, one of Taiwan's largest department stores, and its counterpart in China, which can result in the complete loss of investment on the part of Taiwanese companies. Though many Taiwanese businesspeople can do little to prevent themselves from being ripped off, robbed, or even having their businesses taken over, they often have to remain silent about the losses they have suffered [due to China's lack of law enforcement]. However, while we feel that we cannot forbid trade exchanges and business cooperation between Taiwan and China, these must be carried out strictly under the principles of "proactive management and effective liberalization." These principles are essential, and we must adhere to them. Thank you.
MEP Konrad Szymanski: Let me say that the Vatican is of course the perfect place to visit in Europe and very representative of Europe. But in saying that I would like to share the hopes of Ms. Astrid Lulling that we should do our best to widen the scope of your European destinations.
Mr. President, during our last video meeting in Geneva, you said that the European Parliament is the best friend of Taiwan. I would like to say, I would like to declare, that we will do our best to have the reasons to say it again, now and in the future. We know very well what alienation of Taiwan means for international cooperation: It hurts Taiwan itself, but it also hurts our own level of security, the…in the face of epidemics, for example. It also lowers our standards in the intellectual property area, and also in the area of civil aviation security. So it is a mutual and common issue for us.
I'd also like to say that these 12 failed attempts of Taiwan to join the UN say a lot about the UN itself. This is why I would like to put the Taiwan question in the context of UN reform. I'm sure that one of the leading indications of the real reform of the UN, which can bring the legitimization and the revival of this organization, will depend on how the UN responds to the Taiwan people's request for membership.
As you know, we are very concerned about militarization of China, about the anti-secession law. But allow me to also express my hesitation concerning the referendum. I think… Let me put forth one issue. My personal belief is that election time is the worst time to hold a referendum like this, with such crucial consequences. And this is why I would like to ask you about two things:
Are you ready to rethink the issue of the referendum? And second, are you sure that the referendum is necessary and unavoidable? Thank you.
President Chen: Of course, the referendum is necessary and urgent. If you were the President of Taiwan, or were among the 23 million people of Taiwan, and if you were faced with China's military intimidation and diplomatic suppression—particularly given China's repeated claim in international venues that Taiwan is a part of the People's Republic of China, and that Taiwan is not a nation, that the Republic of China is not a nation—if you were faced with this sort of external threat, then [you would know that] Taiwan's sovereignty is indeed in danger of being altered and that we have no choice [but to push for the referendum].
Only by means of the most democratic, peaceful, low-profile, and moderate approach can we express our wishes and our frustration at not being able to accept [this state of affairs]. We haven't declared independence and haven't changed our official moniker. Nor have we conducted a referendum on a "Republic of Taiwan Constitution" or on the issue of unification versus independence.
We are merely manifesting to the world the voice and the will of 77 percent—nearly 80 percent—of Taiwan's 23 million people by combining a referendum with an election, in order to coalesce our internal strength and to enable the international community to understand us.
In the past, we took the wrong approach. Over the previous 14 years of striving to join the United Nations, we competed with China over the question of representation of China. [NOTE: The DPP administration has never sponsored a UN resolution proposal claiming that the ROC government represents China.] We no longer believe that this is the correct approach. UN [General Assembly] Resolution 2758 has already resolved the question of the representation of China. It is settled that the People's Republic of China represents China.
But the question of the representation of Taiwan remains to be resolved. The 23 million people of Taiwan should be represented in the UN. The People's Republic of China doesn't have the right to represent Taiwan's people, which is the reason for our current effort and struggle [to join the UN]. Our past efforts were ineffectual, misjudged bids for participation that couldn't evoke any interest or prompt any discussion.
This time, we have got it right. We should have done this a long time ago. The international media are giving us a lot of attention, and many of their editorials encourage Taiwan, sympathizing and supporting us. These include The Wall Street Journal, The Seattle Times, The Guardian, The Economist, and even The Oklahoman, as well as the Washington-based organization Freedom House and Japan's Sankei Shimbun newspaper. Everyone is standing up and showing us their warm-hearted concern, for which we are very grateful and deeply moved.
Though relentlessly oppressed, we don't feel alone. Although we may not succeed immediately and can't reach our destination in a single step, and although we have no expectation of success in this year's campaign, as long as we take the first step and let the whole world know that the 23 million people of Taiwan are shut out of the UN, know that we are "international orphans" and that our collective human rights are being ignored—this in itself, the fact that everyone is taking notice, makes us realize we are not alone. As for how China treats Taiwan, they have to keep in mind that, under the international community's watchful eye, they must give the matter careful consideration.
Just now, the question was raised as to whether it is appropriate to hold a referendum in tandem with an election. It's the same in any country: You can hold a referendum at any time, either in conjunction with an election or not.
It wasn't until 2003 that we enacted our first Referendum Act. Some have described it as a "birdcage" referendum law that confines our people's right of referendum in a birdcage. This is because the thresholds for obtaining enough petition signatures and for passing a referendum are inconceivably high. To pass a referendum, it takes more than 8 million [out of the total 16 million] eligible voters to cast "yes" ballots.
In Taiwan, it is possible to reach the threshold of 50 percent of all eligible voters to pass a referendum proposal only on the occasion of a presidential election, with a turnout of 80 percent and 60 percent of voters casting "yes" ballots. Taiwan is rather unique in the world for requiring approval by 50 percent of the entire electorate in order to pass a referendum proposal. In most countries, it requires only the majority of those who turn out to vote. So people outside Taiwan, including those in European countries, can't comprehend the situation in Taiwan.
It isn't our intent to use referendums to influence the outcome of elections. What we want to do is utilize the electoral process to carry out public education in the practice of democracy. Holding a referendum in this way also offers the opportunity for everyone to consider, discuss, and debate about Taiwan's future. So if all necessary preparations have been completed in accordance with the law, we will be able to hold the referendum concurrently with next year's presidential election.
Further, I want to make it clear that my failure to visit European Union countries other than the Vatican isn't a matter of choice. You all know that it was only because of my attendance at the requiem mass held for the late Pope John Paul II that I was able to set foot in Europe. Despite our having had diplomatic relations with the Vatican for more than 60 years, no president from Taiwan had ever been able to pay a visit there. It was only under such a circumstance that I became the first to go there.
As for other countries, how can I visit them? It isn't that I've decided not to, but that I've been unable to get visas. In 2001, Liberty International awarded me its Prize for Freedom. I wanted to go and receive it but was prevented from doing so. The award ceremony was supposed to be held in Denmark but couldn't be held there. Later, it was held at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, and all I could do was ask my wheelchair-bound wife to go and receive the prize on my behalf.
Isn't it a terrible joke that I was awarded an international freedom prize but wasn't accorded the freedom by the international community to receive the prize? Isn't it a blow to freedom that I had to depute my wife, for whom travel is troublesome? This is a very grave problem, and I hope we can work together to solve it.
Nevertheless, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to former European Parliament President Pat Cox for his formal invitation in 2003, even though I was unable to make it due to pressure from China. In the future, I hope I'll have the chance to come and meet with you all in person at the European Parliament, instead of having to put up with videoconferences that are sometimes plagued by signal interruptions.
MEP Charles Tannock: Thank you very much, Mr. President. It's always an honor to be here and address this audience, and have this dialogue with you as President of Taiwan. And I've always admired your country for its spirit of freedom and democracy, and in fact last year, I even had a Taiwanese… working in my office, I think she was the only Taiwanese in the Parliament but, that shows how much of an interest I've taken over the years in your country's development. Astrid Lulling is very modest about her small country. I'll have to remind her that you did have two presidents of the European Union. And Luxembourg, like Taiwan, punches well above its weight internationally, partly because of the huge successes economically both countries have had over the decades.
It's clear from the early part of your intervention—I couldn't be here because I was discussing my report in the Foreign Affairs Committee—that you are not satisfied by the UN Secretary-General's, Mr. Ban Ki-moon's, response to your initial request for Taiwanese accession to the UN. Did any of the EU member states protest the correct procedures were not adhered to? During the Cold War, I would like to remind everybody, that the Federal Republic, i.e. West Germany, recognized East Germany's membership of the UN, and had diplomatic relations without excluding, within their constitution, an eventual unification, which of course happened in due course when the Cold War ended. So I think there is a model in the past of something similar to what exists between your country and the People's Republic.
Can you convince any of the 27 EU member states to break ranks and question the "one China policy," which I believe, at least should be openly debated now without intimidation by the People's Republic of China. As a medical doctor, I always objected to the People's Republic of China and its obstructionism on your application for membership of the World Health Organization, and in particular the World Health Assembly. Why for instance, I ask now, are the United States and the European Union saying that the Kosovo question, which is something that has been very much on our minds in the Foreign Affairs Committee, must be settled after only seven years? There's a huge rush to settle this issue in terms of its final status, and yet the Taiwanese issue cannot even be debated without intimidation in the UN General Assembly.
I often hear from diplomats from the People's Republic of China that China is too big a country to enjoy Western-style democracy or human rights comparable to what we enjoy here in Europe. And yet India, a country which I have huge admiration for—in fact I founded The Friends of India in the European Parliament—manages to enjoy not only democracy, but also high standards of human rights. But nevertheless, its attempts in the past, which I support, to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council, have been successively blocked partly by China and Pakistan lobbying. Similarly, Japan, in its quest to become a permanent member in the Security Council, has been excluded because of its own historical problems with China. Has either of these two great democracies, India or Japan, shown any support for your request for UN membership?
MEP Graham Watson: Welcome to the European Parliament. Mr. President, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I, as we look around the world, believe that there are three big challenges that increasingly we've all faced together: the challenge of world population growth and development and migration; the challenge of climate change and energy security; the challenge of internationally organized crime linked to terrorism. These are all supranational challenges, and increasingly they demand supranational answers. It seems to us that the danger of insisting on national sovereignty is that you open the door to global anarchy, and we look forward to a world in which we can work more closely with your country and others in finding common answers to the common challenges that we face. But of course to do that, we need a United Nations, which is democratic, representative, and more effective. And I would be interested in your ideas as to how we can make the United Nations more democratic, more representative, and more effective. And whether you think that you might join the growing campaign here in Europe, for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, a world parliament, to complement the e-Parliament which we've established and which is linking us today. I’d be interested, Mr. President, to hear your remarks on that. Hsie hsie ni (Chinese=thank you).
President Chen: Thank you very much. I would like to express my gratitude to Senator Tannok and Chairman Watson, for whom we have much respect, for their remarks and suggestions. I believe that if India and Japan can practice democracy, so could China. China says that it cannot practice true democracy because its territory and population are too large, but we believe this is just an excuse. India has a population of more than one billion and Japan is also highly populous. Even though their populations are not as big as China's, we have to ask how these highly populated nations have managed to become democratic?
In the past, some said that a system of democracy is not feasible in Asia. However, Japan has implemented the system. So has Korea. And Taiwan became democratic years ago. President Bush stressed at the CEO Summit of the informal APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting in Sydney, that Taiwan is both an important ally of the US and an example of democracy in the Asia-Pacific region. This is something we are very proud of, and we are grateful for the President's recognition. So, we do not think that the reasons cited by China are valid.
Today, Taiwan wishes to join the United Nations. Is it not possible for Taiwan to hold a referendum? Can't Taiwan become a member of the United Nations? Or is it simply that we cannot apply to this organization under the name "Taiwan"? If the international community opposes our moves, and is unable to hear the voice of Taiwan's people or support their decision, we would like it please to clarify its reasons. Is it because the 23 million people of Taiwan should not be guided by democratic values? Is it because we should not enjoy the right to referendum? Or is it because the 23 million people of Taiwan are just [innately] meant to be blocked from the United Nations? There must be some reason why we have been excluded from the United Nations system. Please explain to us why only the 23 million people of Taiwan are unable to enter the United Nations, while other countries and peoples can.
Likewise, if one said that we should not apply for UN membership under the name "Taiwan," then what name should we use? In the WTO we are represented under the name "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu." Could such a name help ensure our UN accession? And could it mute China's objections and gain the US's support? Or should we perhaps use the name "Chinese Taipei," which is our title as a member of APEC? If we used this name in place of “Taiwan,” would it help Taiwan in becoming a UN member? Could using this name help prevent a veto of our application within the Security Council and prevent China from objecting to our membership, whilst garnering the praise and support of the US?
I think it is highly unlikely, thanks to China claiming that Taiwan does not have the right to participate in any international organizations under any name or in any form: Taiwan cannot join the UN, the WHO, and not even be an observer of the WHA. Many members of the European Parliament have given us a lot of support and expressed their wishes that Taiwan would be granted "meaningful participation" in the WHO. But eventually, the whole scenario turned into a farce.
You may or may not know that China's Ministry of Health had signed a secret MOU with the WHO in July 2005. That downgraded Taiwan's status, describing it as part of China. Even regarding serious epidemics, such as the 2003 SARS outbreak, WHO experts must obtain China's permission before they can be sent to Taiwan. Furthermore, any Taiwanese health experts' applications to attend WHO technical meetings have to be filed in advance, reviewed, and approved by the Chinese authorities. With its 23 million people, is Taiwan really part of China? Isn't Taiwan actually a sovereign country? How come Taiwan has been belittled to the extent that we need to obtain approval from China for our participation in any WHO/WHA activities and conferences.
My honorable guests, dear friends, can you accept such arguments and such a position [on the part of China]? Yet this is the way things are. And we are left with virtually no options. This is nothing but suppression of Taiwan by China. Even the various statements the US government has made in recent days regarding Taiwan can be attributed to the China factor—China's suppression, boycott, and intimidation of Taiwan.
China claims it will use force against Taiwan if we do not stop applying for UN membership under the name "Taiwan." Should the nation of Taiwan, our 23 million people, give up their faith in democracy because of China's threats and unreasonable behavior? Should we just sit there as quiet as a lamb, not daring to make a sound, nor say a word? How could we stand to live like that? Today, if we switched roles, would you, my guests, choose to lead such a life? I think the answer is clear.
As for Germany's situation, it took East Germany quite some time to enter the WHO. In the very beginning, its application for membership was turned down, though eventually it was accepted by the UN General Assembly. East and West Germany have since become one unified country. However, before their unification, both were members of the UN. China wishes to unify Taiwan and its people with the People's Republic of China. But given China's suppression that Taiwan's 23 million people have to endure today, would they be ready to accept such a unification? How did West Germany treat East Germany? The fact that both East and West Germany had seats in the UN did not hinder their unification in the end. And so, I fail to understand how China can resort to brutality and unreasonable moves aimed at annexing Taiwan, and not even allow the people of Taiwan a short respite and some breathing space. This is unacceptable.
As I just mentioned, the UN can provide the solution to these issues. If Taiwan were to become a member of the UN, then Taiwan and China could meet each other as part of the UN family. We would be able to discuss the future of the two countries and the type of political relations that should exist across the Taiwan Strait. We could talk about it every day. If, on one day, we were unable to find a solution, perhaps we would find one the next. If not this month, maybe next month. If we are unsuccessful this year, then we can try again next year. There will eventually come a day when we will find common ground, consensus, and conclusions acceptable to both sides. Would this not be a better situation? Why does China deploy so many missiles aimed at Taiwan, and why is Taiwan forced to buy weapons from the United States? How can such a vicious cycle do any good to anyone? Should this be happening in a peaceful world or in today’s democratic world? Therefore, we have put forward our appeal. But it is not enough to rely only on the UN. Take, for example, the North Korean nuclear issue. Although North and South Korea are both members of the UN, it is via the mechanism of the "six-party talks," not through the UN, that a solution is being sought.
We hope the international community can help resolve a number of issues. MEP Watson stated that the European Parliament would one day become a "world parliament." I fully agree with him. We hope that the European Parliament will become a global parliament, of which Taiwan would be a member. If cross-strait issues have not been resolved by then, that is fine. We will find solutions in this global parliament. And we will ask MEP Watson to help us solve these problems.
As time is short, all I can do is express my respect for and gratitude to you. Though you have been under great pressure, including that from China, you are there speaking with me today. And I am deeply moved. I hope that next time, I will be able to make a trip to the European Parliament to visit you all and sit beside you. That might make our discussions a little more comfortable! Thank you very much.
Secretary-General Dunlop: I would like to thank Mr. President again. I would also like to thank the members of the European Parliament for attending this teleconference. Since all of you have busy schedules, it is very special to have today's discussion. Today's discussion covered many important points. Among them, I believe there are at least one or two things that the European Parliament can take practical action to improve. For instance, we can again show our opposition to Beijing's military threats, and protest the UN Secretary-General's action. I think this is what the European Parliament can do.
Naturally, I think the most important thing is, like Mr. President mentioned earlier, that Taiwan has already become a surveyor's pole, a paragon for China's 1.3 billion people. Since there is no mechanism for democracy there, Taiwan's democracy is their best model. This is something other totalitarian regimes may emulate. I am certain that Taiwan needs your assistance, which will guarantee the continual prosperity and development of Taiwan's democracy.
I would like to say something more. I hope there will be a day when the 1.3 billion people in China are able to decide their own future. Just like the people in Taiwan, they will have such a right. Today, more than half of the people in the world remain unable to choose the government they like through their wishes. Efforts are still needed in this respect. Lastly, I would like to thank Mr. President and hope that, in the near future, the European Parliament will continue its dialogue with the people of Taiwan. Thank you.
President Chen: Thank you.
Should discrepancies exist between the Chinese and English transcripts of the President's remarks, the Chinese version takes priority.