Videoconference between President Chen Shui-bian
and the Overseas Press Club of America
Office of the President
Republic of China (Taiwan)
September 14, 2007
On the evening of September 14, President Chen Shui-bian talked with journalists and former US diplomats in New York via a videoconference entitled "Face-to-Face with Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian," conducted by the Overseas Press Club (OPC) of America. The discussion was moderated by former OPC President William Holstein. Participants in the discussion included John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the United Nations; Therese Shaheen, former Chairperson of the American Institute in Taiwan; Bruce Dunning, former Director of the Tokyo Bureau of CBS News; and Ian Williams, The Guardian Correspondent to the United Nations.
[President Chen's opening remarks]
Mr. William Holstein, former president of the Overseas Press Club (OPC) of America; Ambassador John Bolton, former US Permanent Representative to the UN; Ms. Therese Shaheen, former AIT Chairperson; Mr. Bruce Dunning, former director of the Tokyo Bureau of CBS News; Mr. Ian Williams, the British newspaper Guardian's correspondent to the UN; friends from the media, Ladies and Gentlemen: Good Morning!
It is indeed my great pleasure to exchange views with you on issues regarding our UN membership application under the name "Taiwan" by means of this video conference on the eve of the 62nd session of the UN General Assembly. In doing so, we are sending a clear message to the international community of the strong aspiration of Taiwan's 23 million people to join the world body.
Taiwan has the world's 16th largest trade volume, is the 18th largest economy, and ranks the 6th for its innovation competitiveness. Taiwan's population of 23 million people exceeds that of Australia and is just a bit smaller than the combined population of the Netherlands and Belgium. Taiwan's landmass of 36,000 square kilometers is about the same size as Switzerland. However, Taiwan has long been excluded from the United Nations and its very existence ignored. Such unjustified abnormal situation exists not because Taiwan lacks the basic elements that constitute a sovereign state, but rather because the world community is reluctant to face the reality and is short of moral courage to defend justice.
UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, adopted on October 25, 1971, states merely that the UN "decides 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 text of the Resolution in its entirety never mentions "Taiwan" and does not declare that Taiwan is a province of the PRC, nor does it accept the PRC's claim that it has sovereignty over Taiwan. In other words, UN Resolution 2758 only addresses the issue of the representation of "China," but does not touch upon the issue of Taiwan's representation. Accordingly, the PRC has no right, nor does it have the legitimacy, to represent the people of Taiwan in the United Nations.
In the past 36 years, it would seem that the people of Taiwan have been under apartheid and deprived of their rights to express and defend themselves in the international society. Taiwan has been suppressed and treated as an invisible country. Our people have waited long enough for a proper change, and we have experienced more than enough humiliation and frustration. The people of Taiwan deserve every right to demand appropriate representation in the United Nations. Moreover, we have every right to be a full UN member, standing on equal footing with other member states.
Some have claimed that Taiwan is not a sovereign country, or wrongly cited the Resolution 2758 when they denied Taiwan's qualification to apply for UN membership. Some have even denounced Taiwan's efforts to join the UN as an "unnecessary provocation, an attempt to alter the status quo in the Taiwan Strait." In reality, these are just excuses and alibi. The real reason is China's incessant, obsessive attempt to obstruct, intimidate and blockade Taiwan's noble pursuit.
To demand that Taiwan remain silent merely because of China's peremptory and unreasonable attitude, or to expropriate the right of the people of Taiwan to say "no" to China merely because of the threat of a Chinese military invasion of Taiwan, is for the United Nations to allow itself to become a pawn--not just a hostage kidnapped by China, but a debased mouthpiece of the Chinese government. Could the international community possibly accept and be satisfied with such an outcome?
The United Nations is the most important mechanism we have to maintain world peace. However, with regards to the current situation in the Taiwan Strait, due to China's rapid military build-up, continued ballistic missile deployment against Taiwan, and military maneuvers that simulate attacks on Taiwan, the military equilibrium in the Strait is continuously shifting towards China's favor. This seriously threatens the security, stability and peace of the entire Asian Pacific region. The world community should not expect Taiwan to stand alone in the face of a hegemonic China with ever growing military might. The disputes in the Taiwan Strait must be settled by a collective security mechanism through peaceful dialogue. If Taiwan becomes a member of the United Nations, a broader and more stable mechanism for dialogue and negotiations could then be established. Such a mechanism will be conducive to reducing tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Therefore, our application to join the United Nations under the name "Taiwan" not only has nothing to do with changing the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, but also ensures that the status quo is not changed by China.
We have an old saying that a catastrophe can only be stopped at its conception.
At the end of World War I, in pursuit of lasting world peace, the Entente victors organized the League of Nations. Lacking the support of the United States, however, the League was later unable to counter the aggression of the Axis powers. Within less than 20 years, WWII broke out. The historical lesson is not far distant: only by firmly saying "no" to belligerent dictators and aggressors can we contain their expansionist ambitions. Compromise and appeasement will only lead to greater loss and catastrophe.
Giving Taiwan's application a fair review and warmly embracing Taiwan as a new member to the UN will help safeguard the interests of Taiwan, Japan, the United States, and other friendly nations. It is an effort that shows respect for the basic rights of the people of Taiwan. It also demonstrates the determination of the UN and the world in defending universal values of freedom, democracy, human rights, peace and justice. It will make all of us more confident of the promise of a more democratic and peaceful world.
Again, I would like to thank the host and all panelists for your participation today and your long-standing support of Taiwan. Tomorrow, there will be a synchronized event entitled "Hand in hands for Taiwan, UN membership" in Kaohsiung and New York City. Thousands of overseas Taiwanese will be gathering in the Dag Hammerjore Plaza in front of the UN headquarters with the sea goddess Ma-tzu from Chiayi, Taiwan. I cordially invite all of you to join us tomorrow, to voice your support for Taiwan's UN membership, and for the ongoing pursuit of freedom, security and prosperity for the people of Taiwan. My best wishes for your health and happiness. Thank you!
[End of President Chen's opening remarks]
Q1
William Holstein (Moderator): Might I have the right of asking the first question, which I always enjoy? The State Department has criticized your plans to hold a referendum in March on your bid to join the United Nations. Why do you think the United States government, which is interested in promoting democracy around the world, is against a referendum?
President Chen: To be honest, it doesn't make sense to me either. I am becoming increasingly confused as to why the US is opposed to a referendum on UN membership for Taiwan. Is it because they are against us using the name "Taiwan"? Are they simply opposed to Taiwan becoming a UN member? Or is it that they are opposed to a national referendum? We have heard the US Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte, say that holding a UN membership referendum would be a step toward Taiwan declaring independence, and Senior Director of the National Security Council, Dennis Wilder, claim that Taiwan is not a country, and nor is the Republic of China (R.O.C.), so Taiwan cannot become a member of the UN. Likewise, we have heard Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Thomas Christensen, state that by using the name "Taiwan," we are changing our national moniker, and that the US is, therefore, opposed to a referendum on UN membership under this name.
In each case, different people say different things and give differing reasons why the US does not support, and moreover, opposes the situation. So, I've come to a point when I wish to know what the real reason is. It should be plainly stated, though people are afraid to admit to this, that China is the reason. It is all because of China's suppression, opposition, boycott, discontent, and intimidation regarding Taiwan that people are saying, "Taiwan can't do this and it can't do that." The 23 million people of Taiwan cannot emit a sound, they cannot express their wish to join the UN, nor can they hold a referendum in any form or on any topic, otherwise China will use military force against Taiwan, creating cross-strait tension and thus affecting the stability in the Asia-Pacific region. Today, China holds a gun at our head with one hand, and strangles us with the other, whilst ordering us to remain silent and not express our anguish, unless we "surrender." Otherwise, it will refuse to lay down the gun.
If you happened to be one of Taiwan's 23 million people and had to keep quiet, not daring to emit a sound, barely even daring to breathe, then you would have to either just wait for your death, or react against China and say "no." It is quite simply wrong to use military threats and point the gun at the people of Taiwan. Why can't the US, leader of the community of democracies, tell China that this is wrong? Why can't the US tell China that it can't just point a gun at our 23 million people, whilst at the same time, it strangles us, ordering us to keep quiet and not express our suffering or say "no"? Instead, the US points its arrows at the 23 million people of Taiwan, its government, and its president. Is that fair?
So, we wish to hear the true answer. If the real reason [for the statements that have been made about Taiwan] is as straightforward as this, then the reason for the US's opposition is clear and concrete. But why were different people coming out with such different things on separate occasions? I, like everybody else, including the host of today's meeting, would very much like to know the real answer to this question.
Q2
John Bolton: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Hello, Mr. President. It's a pleasure to see you again. Congratulations on your leadership on the issue of Taiwan joining the United Nations. I have a couple of questions that, if you'll permit, I'd like to preface with a brief introduction—three, to be precise.
Unrelated to the question of UN membership, but of great importance to both the United States and Taiwan, is the issue of diplomatic recognition. As you know, I have felt for some time that the United States should extend full diplomatic recognition to Taiwan; that the inhibition that many countries around the world feel in having full diplomatic relations with Taiwan comes from the threat from Beijing; and that countries that recognize Taiwan would be cut off from recognition in Beijing, not vice versa.
So I really think it's up to the United States to take the lead on this question. As difficult a transition as it might be, I think, ultimately, removing the ambiguity on the status of Taiwan is something that would benefit the United States and make it clear that the United States will not tolerate the use of force, or the threat of the use of force, by China against Taiwan.
Now, many people oppose the United States extending full diplomatic recognition. And one of the reasons that they offer is that if the US were to exchange ambassadors and go through the full array of steps that would need to be taken, then Taiwan would not behave responsibly; that Taiwan would use diplomatic recognition by the United States as a kind of license to engage in provocative behavior in the region, thus risking drawing the United States into conflict.
My own view actually is the precise opposite, since the United States doesn't grant any country in the world—even its closest allies—a free hand in changing American diplomacy.
But I want to know what your reaction would be to a decision by the United States to grant recognition, and how you would see that affecting peace and stability in the region and the future prospects for Taiwan.
President Chen: I would like to thank Ambassador Bolton for bringing up these serious issues. Before I respond with an explanation, I must first offer my affirmation of President Bush for his positive expressions concerning Taiwan at the recent informal APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting in Sydney, Australia. And at the Business Leaders' Meeting, he especially mentioned Taiwan twice, first while speaking about the great successes Taiwan and other Asian democracies have seen as regards their democratic transformation; and then while speaking of the solid defense ties shared between these nations and the United States and how these have assured the security and stability of the Asia-Pacific region. This is something that has moved the 23 million people of Taiwan. On behalf of the government and people of Taiwan, I want to offer our highest respects and utmost thanks.
And as for tomorrow's march in Kaohsiung, I would like to emphasize that the US is a friend of Taiwan. It is not Taiwan's opponent. The real enemy lurks in the background. It is China. It is the Communist Party of China. So we should not be mistaken or look to the wrong target. We should not wear so-called "Bush shoes" [the term used in Taiwan for the Crocs brand of shoes, as President Bush has been seen wearing a pair] and allow for this to be twisted such that unnecessary articles are penned.
If indeed the US could act as Ambassador Bolton has suggested, if it could establish formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan, then those issues with which the US is concerned—for example, its recent push to have me see whether or not I can oppose or stop the referendum on joining the UN—if the United States could really extend us formal diplomatic recognition, then we might question whether or not to continue with our activities, including the referendum. The 23 million people of Taiwan would certainly have a new perspective on the issue.
But is this really a possibility? Not only does the United States not establish diplomatic relations with Taiwan, it also recently stated that neither "Taiwan" nor the "R.O.C." is a state or a sovereign nation. This really hurts the 23 million people of Taiwan. I believe that this was definitely not President Bush's intention, so I really wonder what his subordinates' aims were in saying such things. Why, under pressure from China, would such words, so hurtful to the people of Taiwan, be said?
And with regard to substantive Taiwan-US cooperation and our longstanding friendship, such words are of no help. But we are thankful for, and we hold in great esteem, Ambassador Bolton's strong statement. What he says is absolutely right. In 1971, when the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek were thrown out of the UN, the elder President Bush, then the US Ambassador to the UN, represented the US government in putting forward the idea of membership for both the R.O.C. and the People's Republic of China (PRC). So this idea is not new—36 years ago, in 1971, the US government had already voiced such an idea. If we could turn back the clock, might it not be possible [to put it into practice]? We await such a day. Ambassador Bolton, we are very grateful for your comments. Thank you.
Q3
Bolton: Thank you, Mr. President. Second question. I'll see if I can answer, in part, Mr. Holstein's question on the referendum. I think there's a cultural problem at the US Department of State, a cultural problem that has existed essentially since 1949, when many people at the State Department predicted the inevitability of the fall of Taiwan to the People's Liberation Army. Even though it's nearly 60 years later, there are still many in the State Department who see the inevitability of the collapse of Taiwan. Indeed, there are many at the State Department who seem more eager to recognize the dictatorship in North Korea than to recognize the democracy in Taiwan.
I think the opposition to the referendum stems from an inability, in part, to confront the substance of an issue. And instead, in typical State Department fashion, they focus on process. It's actually inappropriate and illegitimate for one democracy to tell another democracy not to act so democratic.
I'd like to see one member of the United States Senate or House of Representatives get up and explain to their constituents why they're not entitled to vote in a referendum on important policy questions.
But I would like to ask the President, the basis for the question in the referendum on the use of the name "Taiwan," and to give us some background on his thinking as to why the application for UN membership this year uses the name "Taiwan."
President Chen: Let me first extend my thanks to Ambassador Bolton. It seems, indeed, to me that the US would rather improve relations with North Korea. Moreover, with an old ally like Taiwan, the US is sometimes very stern, which I cannot understand. As Secretary Rice mentioned, even if the Security Council raised objections, and the UN has no way of passing related resolutions to express support, the US believes that one day Kosovo will be independent. So the US can support Kosovo, but why is Taiwan unworthy of US's concern? We are not saying that by wanting to join the UN today, we should automatically receive US support. But at least they should not object. Even if they do oppose us, they should give the 23 million people of Taiwan a chance to be heard as part of the whole process.
Why is it that so many people in Taiwan want to join the UN, to the extent that even despite the ruling and opposition parties' acknowledged differences regarding national identity, on this issue [of UN application] we have unanimous consensus. If this were not the case, in such a democratic, diverse society as Taiwan, it would be impossible to have over 77 percent support for this.
Having said this, polls are not everything. Therefore, the voice of the people, their hopes, still must [be acknowledged] via a democratic process, which is a referendum. A referendum on joining the UN under the name "Taiwan" is simply an expression of this kind of idea, of this kind of voice and hope. It does not mean that next year, when the referendum is passed, we will immediately become a member of the UN. We still have to apply. The US can still express concerns. The Security Council can still exercise its veto.
However, why, throughout the whole process, are the Taiwanese people unable to make their voice heard and express their desire to join the UN? For a long time, under the encouragement of the US, the 23 million people of Taiwan have been striving towards democratization.
However, today, while being supported by the US on the path of democratization, it is as if we see a red line being drawn before us. It is as though our democracy is a limited democracy, not a full democracy, not 100 percent democracy—a democracy that has been shut in a birdcage.
Yesterday we completed our democracy classes taught us by the US. However, today we are confused about whether what the teachers taught us is correct or not. Is there not a problem with the long-term education or training we have received? [When things are] this way, we have no way of knowing the correct answer.
Today, we want to join the UN under the name "Taiwan." If you think that using the name "Taiwan" is tantamount to changing the national moniker, then what, may I ask, is Taiwan's national moniker? Does the US acknowledge that the national moniker of Taiwan is the "R.O.C."? The national moniker of Taiwan is the "R.O.C." So will the US support [Taiwan in] joining the UN under the name "R.O.C."? [No.] We cannot use the name "R.O.C." and we cannot change it. Interestingly, the US has the Taiwan Relations Act, not the R.O.C. Relations Act.
Similarly, if Taiwan citizens want to go to the US, they must apply for a US visa on which one line reads "nationality." Here is my passport, and in it, the nationality is written very clearly. We call ourselves the R.O.C., but when we get a US visa, the nationality is changed to "Taiwan." Who is changing our national moniker? The US first changed our national moniker. When you change things, it is right. When we talk about changing things, it is wrong.
This is a very interesting and contradictory situation. If today we do not use the name "Taiwan," what name can we use? Is "Chinese Taipei" OK? Or "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu"? It is very clear that using the name "Taiwan" has been seen as tantamount to changing the national moniker. The US supported Taiwan to join APEC with the name "Chinese Taipei" and the WTO with the name "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu." However, our national moniker is not "Chinese Taipei" just as it is not "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu."
Why does the US support us changing our national moniker? Because you do not acknowledge the R.O.C., so the name has to be changed always. We in Taiwan have so many names. However, we still think that the best name is "Taiwan." "Taiwan" is the most powerful name. It is the name of our motherland. It is the name that touches the hearts of the Taiwan people. That is all [we want]. Why have we been condemned in such a serous manner [for this]?
Q4
Bruce Dunning: Thank you, Bill. Good morning, Mr. President. Given that there are any number of crises in various parts of the world right now, especially the ongoing conflict in Iraq, how much international support or even attention do you think you will be able to muster for your attempt once again to join the United Nations? It seems that there are so many other issues that are demanding attention and which are at a crisis point, that there doesn't seem to be any great deal of international interest in this issue.
President Chen: As I see it, although there are many important problems in many regions around the world that demand attention, for the 23 million people of Taiwan, the question of our survival is also important, is it not? Are the problems confronting the Taiwanese people unimportant? We admit that the problems of Iraq, Afghanistan, and North Korea are all very important, but how can the problems of Taiwan's people not be? Aren't the 23 million Taiwanese human beings? We too are human beings!
We should enjoy health rights. We should enjoy political rights. And we should be able to enjoy living in accordance with the same universal values as other peoples do. Everyone talks about democracy, freedom, peace, human rights, and justice. Aren't the 23 million people of Taiwan entitled to these things? How can there be a double standard?
The situation in Iraq is a matter of great importance. You help overthrow a regime and tell people to institute democracy. We in Taiwan already have democracy, so if you tell us we can't enjoy democracy, and even take away and limit our democracy, isn't that contradictory? To a country that already has democracy, you give no encouragement or support, but instead, hit it over the head! It's all well and good to tell an undemocratic country to democratize, but once it has democratized, it's only right to keep on encouraging and supporting it. How can you justify punishing it?
So we certainly agree that the problems of many countries and many regions are important, and we're very concerned about them and very much support [efforts to solve them]. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the leader of the community of democracies—the United States—and we support its antiterrorism actions. We have extended money and resources and have never shirked our responsibilities in dealing with the problems of Iraq and Afghanistan.
But who cares about our problems? If we are told not to talk about our problems but to be patient and wait, how much longer are we supposed to wait? We've already waited 36 years to join the United Nations. Our attempt to join the World Health Organization this year was a continuation of 11 years of struggle. Isn't that long enough? Do we have to struggle another 11 years? Or will we need still another 11 years after that? Why not show us a little concern?
Though it may be difficult to find Taiwan on the map because of its comparatively small size, we are the world's 16th-largest trading nation, the 18th-largest economy, and the sixth-strongest country in terms of innovation. Can it be that we're not important? If the international community has any sense of justice, we hope they won't forget Taiwan, but will show its 23 million people the care, encouragement and support they deserve.
Q5
Moderator: Let me just follow that question by asking: What's really wrong with the status quo? You have a strong economy, your people are healthy, you're prosperous, can travel in the world, and your critics would say that you're rocking the boat, you're threatening to destabilize the situation. So what is the source of your desire to alter your status? Is it a political drive or is the entire territory or nation of Taiwan rising up in one voice? Tell us what is happening, the change to your feelings about this issue.
President Chen: Taiwan has no intention of changing the status quo. We want to maintain it. We want to safeguard the status quo and prevent it from being changed. We are not in a position to change the situation. We only want to protect ourselves, defend ourselves, and safeguard the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan is a sovereign state. We do not want to become a part of some other country, a local province or special administrative region of the PRC. Taiwan and the PRC are two separate independent countries, neither of which is subordinate to the other. That is the main point here.
It is China that is trying to change the status quo. When I assumed the presidency in 2000, China had only 200 missiles deployed against Taiwan. Today, that figure has reached 988 and is increasing at an annual rate of 120 to 150. In 2005, China passed the "anti-separation law" (so-called anti-secession law) to lay a legal basis for a future military invasion of Taiwan. Our information sources tell us that China has completed a three-stage plan for war against Taiwan. They plan to establish contingency-response combat capabilities by the end of 2007, build up combat capability for large-scale military engagement by 2010, and have the capability to ensure victory in a decisive battle by 2015.
China is planning to use military force to change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, while repeatedly declaring in the international arena that Taiwan is a part of the PRC. It has gone so far as to influence UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon into misinterpreting UN Resolution 2758 by saying that Taiwan is a part and a province of the PRC. This is not the status quo. The current state of affairs is that Taiwan is not a province of the PRC. It is Beijing that wants to change and damage the status quo.
I once mentioned to US officials that if the United States felt uncomfortable about the situation and considered Taiwan a part of the PRC, then why not just offer Taiwan to the PRC? Would that be all right? The US government said no. Given that the US government has clearly stated that UN Resolution 2758 definitely makes no mention of Taiwan being a part of the PRC, and it neither supports nor accepts such a scenario, then we have a consensus here. We should safeguard the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, meaning that Taiwan is not a part of the PRC. We are working hard to prevent Taiwan from becoming a part of the PRC.
All our efforts, including the push for a national referendum on UN membership, are aimed at assuring—not changing—the status quo in the strait. It is China that is trying to change the situation. But why are people afraid to speak out, to point out that what China is doing is wrong? Instead, we who seek to defend the status quo are criticized. This is very unfair.
Q6
Therese Shaheen: Thank you very much. Good evening, President Chen. Thank you for the opportunity to let me be a part of this important subject. I agree with you on your comments about President Bush's remarks at the APEC summit. I think they were very important. I think they were very constructive. And I think this brings us to the point that I'd kind of like to make overall, which is, the feeling of the Taiwanese that they deserve respect for what they've accomplished, what they've done, and their friendship with the United States. This is very important, and you said it more articulately than I could have.
A couple of days ago, the State Department determined that they needed to expand the rationale of why they were opposing the referendum. And you referred to this as well in your earlier remarks. I accept their goodwill and their good intentions in making these remarks, but I have a couple of comments about a different way that they might look at the problem.
One is, it was stated that there is plenty of communication between Taiwan and the United States. I don't think the Taiwanese people feel that way. I know that isn't true from the lowest level political appointee who is not confirmed by the Senate, up through the Secretary of State and the President and the Vice President of the United States, they cannot meet their counterparts. And that is just a fact. So how are things supposed to be achieved and how is communication supposed to happen if the diplomats on each side cannot meet and talk with each other?
I'd also like to point out about different ways the United States communicates. It was also said in those remarks that political symbolism matters. I first think of the example of your most recent transit to the United States, where you were given 50 minutes in Anchorage, Alaska as your transit. This was a way the United States was communicating. Now, I think that the freely elected leader of 23 million people, the US's ninth- largest trading partner, and the fourth-largest importer of our agricultural goods, deserves some respect here.
And I think that Taiwanese people of all political stripes feel disrespected when the United States doesn't show respect. Just like we are sometimes offended, regardless of our political proclivities, when our leader is disrespected overseas. This is a form of communication that is not constructive. It can go nowhere. What's next? Ten minutes on the Aleutian Islands? It can only lead to nowhere. Over a year ago, you decided not to transit the United States and go through Libya. So this is an unconstructive way to communicate and it's unproductive political symbolism. The State Department has stated that political symbolism matters. A constructive way to communicate with political symbolism is, for example, the United States has a Sense of Congress, when the Congress doesn't have jurisdiction over a matter or there's no law to be passed, it passes—if it has the vote—a Sense of Congress. This is political symbolism, but it's important political symbolism. It's a way to send a message.
So the last point is about this coercion that you've spoken about. The United States claims that it's trying to protect Taiwan from coercion. And I believe that they're sincere. But if the United States says, and these were part of their remarks a couple of days ago, that China is big and bad and tough and it can get its friends that are intimidated by them to cause trouble in the Taiwan Strait and at the UN and everywhere else, and we just communicate that that coercion will happen, what is that? That feels like we're part of the coercion, or at least we're coercion's handmaiden. I'd like to know what you think about that.
President Chen: Of course, we don't think the US will work with China in coercing Taiwan. We would rather believe that the recent remarks or advice given by US officials regarding Taiwan were out of goodwill and were made out of consideration for the US's strategic interests. I fully agree with former Chairperson Shaheen. Is there anything wrong with how the governments of Taiwan and the US communicate? And what is meant by "constructive communication"? If during my recent transit [through the United States] someone had spoken with me on the plane for 50 minutes—or even twice that long—and asked me if I felt a sense of comfort, convenience, and dignity, I would have had to laugh. How could I have felt comfortable? How could I have felt it was convenient, or felt dignified, with a sense of being respected? But from the viewpoint of the US government, letting me stop over to refuel for 50 minutes on my way to Central and South America would have seemed like a great favor and an achievement, and one which I should be grateful for. Of course I should be grateful! But is it right to treat Taiwan, one of the US's truest and best friends, in this manner? Is this how we should be treated?
The US government might want me to block the referendum on Taiwan's entry to the UN, and even want me, as president of Taiwan, to stand up and oppose such a referendum being promoted by the DPP. Would such a thing be appropriate for a president to do? As a DPP member, can I openly sing a different tune to that of my party? Is this something a party member ought to do? Is this the American way of democracy? I believe not. I think the idea came from the lower ranks, rather than the higher ranks, of the US government. As president of a democracy and member of a democratic party, can I call a halt to both the resolution passed by my party and the citizens' petition drive for a referendum? In addition, it is a fact that over 77 percent of Taiwan's people share this view [that holding a referendum is important], and I, as president of Taiwan, must honor the wishes of the people. I do not guide public opinion. This is not simply my own view or the position of the DPP. Parties exist for the people. As president, I have to respect public opinion. That's the way it is. And, having respected public opinion, I, Chen Shui-bian receive the blame because I did not block or oppose this referendum.
I hope, however, that the US government will hear the voice and understand the feelings of our 23 million people. This is absolutely not the idea of one individual or party. Since Taiwan has become a pluralistic and democratic society, and more than 77 percent of our people support our application for UN membership under the name "Taiwan," their voice is too strong to be ignored. Can the US government turn a deaf ear to it? Can US congressmen pretend it does not exist? The result of the referendum will be out in only a few months, and then everybody will know whether it is merely my own idea or the mainstream opinion of our 23 million people. Personally, I think communication and dialogue between Taiwan and the US should be sincere and frank. It's not right to say we are troublemakers. I really hope our good friends in the US will understand our grievances, our feelings, and what we have been going through.
Q7
Ian Williams: Good evening, President Chen. I have to explain to some extent how much pleasure this gives me. Tomorrow I'll be speaking on a platform with a goddess. I didn't know that. But to show that this is an age of miracles, the idea that a commentator for the left-liberal Guardian and Nation should be appearing on the same platform as Ambassador Bolton and actually agreeing on something is a bit of a miracle and probably needed the goddess' intervention in some way. But the final piece of pleasure I should make note is that yesterday morning I received a phone call from the Mission of the People's Republic of China. And I think similar phone calls must have gone to lots of governments around the world before now. They were expressing extreme displeasure at my presence on this platform. I had a nice 20-minute conversation with the young lady. I explained that despite my Scots and Welsh I’m so straight I didn't actually support Scots and Welsh independence, but I did support their right to ask for it if they want it. This seemed a bit of an alien concept. I explained about democracy and I said that the United Nations, one of its basic principles was self-determination. And Taiwan had the right to self-determination under appropriate UN resolutions. But she finished off by saying that the Chinese Mission would take extreme displeasure and noted my sort-of stubborn refusal to go along with a troublemaker like you on the same platform. And it's sort of symbolic of their tactics, really. It's counterproductive, bullying people like me just produces sort of almost a reflex reaction. But it seems to work with some people, unfortunately. And that's where I've got two questions to ask on this. One is: have you considered asking your allies in the United Nations to take the issue of the Secretary-General's interpretation of 2758 to the International Court of Justice, which I think would rip to shreds the idea? In one of my articles I called this the Swiss-army knife resolution, because it seems to have a blade for every occasion. It comes out and covers almost everything that China wants.
But the second one is a bit more provocative. Several panelists here have been talking about how you get attention in the United States and how you make people recognize you. There's a tried and trusted way. Have you considered refining uranium? You want attention? Go and see what Kim Jong-Il does. Go and see what the ayatollahs do. Fire up those centrifuges. Have you considered this? Because, as I read it, either Taiwan is part of China and therefore covered by the non-proliferation treaty and allowed to have nuclear weapons, or it isn't part of the non-proliferation treaty and therefore isn't covered by any prohibitions on nuclear weapons. So I think you should point out this hole in the diplomatic consensus and, you know, give some serious consideration. I would like your comments on this.
President Chen: I am of a gentle disposition. The 23 million people of Taiwan are also good-natured. Indeed, some people have questioned why Taiwan has acted so obediently and why the people of Taiwan behave like obedient children of the United States. Some suggested that [given the circumstance] we might as well follow in North Korea's footsteps. But can we do that? After all, we are peace-seekers. We are a peace-loving nation. We value human rights. That is why even though we are suppressed in every possible way, we still choose to put up with it. Although we have been treated unfairly in many respects, we still hope to talk things over through dialogue and communication. Therefore, with regard to the issue of developing nuclear weapons you just raised, that is something Taiwan will not do. Taiwan will not offend our friend, the United States, in this way. We are not a troublemaker. We are both a lover of peace and a peacemaker. I would venture to say that I am the leader of one of the US's closest allies. Over the past seven years, we have been very cooperative with the US's policies and stood by the US. Many people from Taiwan's opposition parties and some so-called "pro-unification" media even criticized us for kowtowing to the US. So I feel that the kind of treatment we receive recently is really unfair.
I want to say today that Taiwan's allies have spoken on our behalf, regarding our application for UN membership. I believe that without these allies submitting the application documents for us, we would not have come as far as we have today. It is because we have so many allies who are willing to help Taiwan, that our voice can be heard. These countries may not be large or populous and are even extremely poor. Yet despite their size and limited means, their voices are loud and clear, because they stand on the side of justice and righteousness. The 23 million people of Taiwan admire them and are moved by their actions.
What must be made clear is that application for UN membership is not "[declaring] Taiwan independence," and joining the UN under the name "Taiwan" does not involve a change of our national moniker. In fact, about 40 percent of UN member states did not join the UN under their national moniker. Why can they do it and we can't? The 23 million people of Taiwan want to express their view that they are not part of the PRC, and their voice and opinion will be expressed through the democratic process of a referendum. Why can't we receive the treatment and respect that we rightfully deserve? Application for UN membership is not "[declaring] Taiwan independence." We must reiterate that it has not violated my "four noes" pledge. I have been cautious on this issue. Over the past seven years, my pledge and promise to the US government, the international community, and President Bush have not changed. In my effort to honor the "four noes" pledge, I have received enormous pressure from within the nation. However, for the sake of Taiwan's future and national interests, I must persevere. I have managed to do so for more than seven years. Why is it that the United States, being Taiwan's best friend, cannot understand this, and, on the contrary, has chosen to subject the government of Taiwan, for a long time one of its most supportive and cooperative friends, to such an unfair treatment? Many people can't figure out the reason for this. I believe that Mr. Williams, who had just received a phone call from the PRC, is our best witness. We have just recently convened the 2007 Taiwan-Africa Progressive Partnership Forum in Taipei. Many NGO and business representatives from African nations with which we do not have formal ties wanted to come to Taiwan to participate in the event, but received pressure from China and were forced to cancel their visas. Some were stopped from boarding their flights. Some were charged with treason by their government. These are just a few examples. Pressure from China is everywhere. Even the Guardian's UN correspondent is not excluded from it. In fact, the examples are everywhere. This is China for you.
Q8
Moderator: As a business journalist, I'd like to ask one question before opening this to other questions from the floor. What do you think is going to be the impact, in business terms, of the difficulties we're now seeing with goods being made in China? The quality of the goods is not what we had expected it to be; this affects toys and other products. Is this going to affect the decision of Western and Taiwanese manufacturers? Do you think there's going to be any impact from this series of scandals?
President Chen: Taiwanese products are conscientiously produced and are of the highest quality. There are no "black-heart" [intentionally, unconscionably shoddy] products among them. This is part of the reason why we say Taiwan must not become a part of the PRC, or so-called China. We Taiwanese—including manufacturers of a vast array of different products—are very conscientious, righteous, and responsible.
Given that many of China's manufactured goods, its toys and so many other things, are black-heart products, then, OK, assume Taiwan adds to the long succession of tragedies it will have to endure by becoming part of China, or the PRC. Taiwanese products will thereby become branded as black-heart goods. Wouldn't all the hard work of Taiwanese manufacturers and the 23 Taiwanese people then have been in vain?
This is not an issue just for Taiwan but for the entire world. Even Chinese toothpaste is problematic. Who would have thought that even the toothpaste we use every day would become a danger when made in China? Though no one has ever heard of problems with toothpaste made in Taiwan, wouldn't it be a disaster if Taiwanese-made toothpaste were identified as Chinese-made? We hope, therefore, that everyone will be able to distinguish clearly: Taiwan and China are two separate countries lying on opposite sides of the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan is not China, and everyone can use Taiwan's products with peace of mind, without any worries.
Q9
[ Tuit (unclear):] Thank you, Will. Mr. President, after listening to you for one hour, I think you do have a very strong argument about your campaign to get a seat in the General Assembly. But the argument, for me, looks like it is now the problem between you and the United States, not just the overall issue of Taiwan and the cross-Strait problems. The problem now, to me, is that you're quarrelling with the United States, and I'm sure you are aware that China is watching you fighting the United States, which is the only true friend you have in the world. It is not just a problem between husband and wife. I don't see you marrying a Democratic next year if there is a Democrat president in the White House. So, how do you get out of this mess? Before you deal with China, do you think you have to solve your problem first with the United States, and then both you and the United States will have to deal with China? Thank you.
President Chen: Even the most loving couples quarrel, often bickering one moment and making up the next. We do wish to communicate thoroughly with the United States. However, some people do not acknowledge that there have been misunderstandings and poor communication. However, I am very much in agreement with Ms. Therese Shaheen's statement that there are problems with communication, with the way things have been communicated, and the sincerity of communication. One cannot just use intimidation and issue orders for Taiwan to act in specific ways, saying that there is only one answer and no room for discussion. This is definitely not the way to solve problems. Taiwan is not as stubborn as an immovable rock. In the seven years of my presidency, I have been persistent in many areas, but have also been pragmatic and flexible in many others. There is nothing we cannot talk about, so long as the issues are beneficial to Taiwan and the people of our two countries. I am sure the US is aware of this.
Over the past seven-plus years, we have had a number of exchanges with the Democratic Party. Therefore, following the upcoming 2008 elections, if the Democrats come to power in 2009, there will be no problems in Taiwan's interactions with them as we already have an abundance of invaluable experience that goes back several decades.
The main question is: why do so many issues have to be postponed? I have often said how grateful we are to President Bush for approving so many military sales to Taiwan, ranging from submarines to P-3C anti-submarine patrol aircraft and PAC-3 missiles, within three months upon taking up his presidency in 2001. At that time, we did not have the budget, yet the US approved the sales in one lot.
This year, it took a huge effort for us to pass the budget to purchase F16 C/D fighter planes, and yet we have not been able to obtain the approval from the US for the sale. By the end of October this year, if the US has still not agreed to the sale, we will be forced to return this massive NT$20 billion budget to the national treasury.
Didn't the US tell us we need to strengthen our national defense and upgrade our self-defense capabilities? Why does the US now have reservations at this critical time? Why does it have to postpone the sale and wait till Taiwan's new president and administration are in place next year? During the last year of his term, former President George H.W. Bush agreed to sell Taiwan F-16 A/B fighter planes. Today, why can't President Bush follow in the footsteps of his father and sell us F-16 C/D fighter planes in this last year of his term? If the father could, I believe the son can too.
Q10
Dunning: I would like to turn the question to the issue of the fact that you have several hundred thousand Taiwanese people working in the mainland and extensive investments in the mainland. How would this be affected if relations continued to deteriorate across the Strait? Do you think that the presence of these Taiwanese workers is actually having an effect on policy on the mainland?
President Chen: Taiwan's businesspeople can influence China's policy and, in turn, the Chinese government can influence these people's views and actions. However, I believe that China exerts a greater influence on Taiwan's businesspeople than the other way round. We all know that China is hostile towards Taiwan, refuses to give up its scheme of using force, and has completed a three-stage plan for a war against Taiwan. These are the political and business risks we all have to face in cross-strait exchanges.
Taiwan's government has constantly reminded our businesspeople that although it is fine for them to do business with China, they should also pay attention to and prevent risks. It is not for nothing that we have set "proactive management and effective liberalization" as our guiding principles for all cross-strait economic and trade exchanges and business cooperation.
China should be aware that the people in Taiwan believe China is hostile towards Taiwan. Helping our businesspeople make money does not mean that the 23 million people of Taiwan will warm to China. Business is business. And although many of Taiwan's businesspeople cannot open their mouths on Taiwan's national sovereignty in front of China, and even bow to China's views on the issue when on Chinese soil, they do love Taiwan. Their homeland is not China, but Taiwan.
Take the recent case of Shin Kong Place, for example. If the Shin Kong group did not have a homeland like Taiwan to fall back on, how could their representatives have come home to safety after having been oppressed in China? Shin Kong's leaders and staff members in Taiwan did so much to help their representatives in China, acting as though they were family members. Thanks to [the environment of] Taiwan, relatives and friends of the representatives could offer their support and encouragement, and seek to redress the injustice. This has prompted China to think carefully when dealing with Shin Kong Place, and consider whether they should compromise and make concessions.
The reason why Taiwanese businesspeople are respected and popular in China is because their motherland is Taiwan. If Taiwan became part of China or a local province of the PRC, Taiwan's businesspeople would be treated no differently from those from Fujian and Zhejiang provinces. What advantages would they have? Would they still be respected?
Q11
Burt Wolf : My name is Burt Wolf. I'm a journalist for public television in the United States. I report about cultural history. When your invitation arrived on my Blackberry, I was in Zurich, having lunch with two of the world's most influential bankers, and I asked them what was this all about. And they said it's very simple. The United States government cannot afford to offend the Chinese mainland, because the money that supports our politicians in their reelection comes from big business, and they don't want to start anything there. Plus, every couple of weeks, we appear to go into a market and say, "We're broke. We need some more money." And the Chinese mainland puts up the money, and now probably holds more of our federal debt than any organization in the world. They tell me it's just about money and has nothing to do with anything else. I'd love to hear your comment on that.
President Chen: It is the first time I have heard this. If it is true, then the situation is very serious. China not only wishes to interfere with Taiwan's politics, it has also become involved in US politics. If it is the case that many people are afraid of offending China because they have benefited through China, this is a very grave issue. While this argument is new to me, on second thought, it makes sense. Why else would Taiwan's actions be regarded as provocative? Why else would people fail to notice and pay attention to China's numerous provocative actions? What does Taiwan count for? Even if Taiwan wishes to act provocatively, we are incapable of doing so and do not have the wherewithal.
However, we will not fear China because it is a huge country. China has threatened to use force against Taiwan, thus creating tensions and instability in the whole region of the Taiwan Strait. We cannot be intimidated by China's threats or be afraid to point out its faults. Taiwan is told to put up with its lot and stay quiet; we are told not to move or express our suffering.
People feel powerless in the face of China because it has firearms and missiles. I often liken our situation to the Cuban Missile Crisis of a few decades ago. The film Thirteen Days highlights how unbearable it is to live with the threat of missiles for thirteen days. But here in Taiwan, we live with a similar crisis each new day. Our 23 million people have to face China's missile threats every day of their lives.
We are not talking about dozens but one thousand missiles. Sometimes, I wish that others could empathize with Taiwan. Geographically, the US is located far away from China, while Taiwan is right next to it. Even under these circumstances, you are afraid of China! Isn't it possible, then, that the people of Taiwan are afraid? In our case, this is a life and death issue. Hence, we are cautious and fearful when dealing with many issues in order to avoid conflicts and bringing Taiwan to the brink of war.
In this way, we have been doing our best to maintain peace, security, and stability in the Taiwan Strait over the past seven years. When I ran for president in 2000, the opposition camps and my challengers said that I could not be allowed to be elected president and that the party I belonged to could not be permitted to become the ruling party. They claimed that if I was elected, China would attack Taiwan. Seven years have since passed. Has China launched an attack on Taiwan? [No.] And would this have been possible without Taiwan's efforts? Is it really plausible that the government and president of Taiwan have not been making any efforts? Would we have been able to maintain a minimum level of peace, security, and stability in the Taiwan Strait? And how could the two sides of the Strait have the frequent business exchanges and close economic and trade cooperation that we see today? How could Taiwan's government not have done anything at all in this? While we are grateful to the US government for its devotion and contributions to the maintenance of cross-strait peace, security, and stability, Taiwan's people also deserve credit for this; and Taiwan's government, myself included, have also played our part. We will not presume to say that we deserve great credit for our work, but people who have done their best should be given fair treatment.
Q12
Williams: President Chen, the issue is often put in stark, binary terms: either reunification or independence. I want to know whether you have considered alternative forms; the form of British Commonwealth, the European Union—just how far could you go in offering to the mainland some forms of association that preserve sovereignty following those types of international models? Just how far are you prepared to go to let them save face and say that there is a "confusion commonwealth" or whatever you want to call it in the region. Because obviously this is a matter of deep domestic political interest in China, where the communists are not communists anymore—this is the sole issue on which they can compete internally. Giving them face, can you think of some examples, like the British Commonwealth, the European Union, or other associations? How far would you be prepared to go?
President Chen: I've talked about and made efforts on this topic for seven years, but all in vain, because China has only one intention and stance, only one outcome: Taiwan is part of the PRC, and there is no possible formula for compromise. In my 2000 inaugural address, when I made my "four noes plus one" pledge, I extended an olive branch with great difficulty in view of the circumstances at that time. Hoping to maintain stability in the Taiwan Strait, I expressed the belief that leaders of Taiwan and China would certainly be able to deal with the possibility of a "future one China" if both sides could muster the wisdom and ability to interact on the basis of the principles of democracy, peace, and parity.
By that time, I had come to understand that China had its "one China principle" and the United States had its "one China policy," whereas we in Taiwan treated the question as consideration of the possibility of a "future one China."
Over the past seven years, we have extended olive branches on at least 40 or 50-odd occasions, with nothing to show, because China's suppression of Taiwan makes no distinction between political stripe or affiliation. Even with respect to Taiwanese opposition parties' concepts of a "1992 consensus" and "one China, each side having its own interpretation," the Chinese authorities can tolerate only a "one China" consensus, with no possible consensus on the acceptability of "each side having its own interpretation." They by no means believe that "one China" can be interpreted in different ways, but that there is simply "one China"—meaning that the PRC government is the only legitimate government of China, and Taiwan is part of the PRC, with no room for ambiguity, and no possibility for progress towards compromise.
Our seven-plus years of experience has led us to a very clear conclusion: China's suppression of Taiwan makes no distinction between political alignments—be it pan-blue or pan-green—or between Taiwan's central and local governments, or between animals and people. Whether within the World Health Organization or the World Organization for Animal Health, China suppresses us with all its might. It targets not only our governments, but also our civic organizations and participation in sports. So this isn't a question of China's wanting to save face, but of its wanting to gain face by devouring us whole.
I have attempted to put forward modes of interaction modeled after the European Union and the two Germanys. Before the two Germanys united, they were members of the UN. Is it possible that China would allow Taiwan to become a UN member? It has prevented us from becoming even an observer in the World Health Assembly and from having meaningful participation in the WHO. So how possible is it for us to become a UN member and then talk about the possibility of unification?
The European Union model of integration is founded on the principles of sovereignty, democracy, peace, and parity. This has worked in the case of the European Union, but is China willing to respect the fact of Taiwan's current sovereign status? Is it willing to respect the free will and choice of the 23 million people of Taiwan? Is China willing to renounce the use of force against Taiwan? Is it willing to resolve differences through dialogue rather than resorting to "non-peaceful means"?
Regarding the matter of parity, we needn't think in terms of who is big and who is small, who is the central government and who is the local government. If we can just sit down on an equal footing and talk in earnest, then we can consider all possibilities, regardless of whether we eventually adopt an EU model, confederation model, or any other form of political association. The premise for such talks, however, is that any arrangement must win the consent of Taiwan's 23 million people. Given their consent, no sort of relationship between Taiwan and China is out of the question. But is China willing to talk on that basis?
The US has repeatedly urged China's leaders in Beijing to engage in direct dialogue and negotiations with Taiwan's democratically constituted government and democratically elected president. The US has done so for the past seven years, but has China listened? Is China able to do this?
This is where the problem lies. It isn't that we haven't tried or haven't worked hard to communicate. We've worked hard at it for seven years, but it's been entirely in vain.
Q13
Benny Avni: Sir, you mentioned before that you think that China influenced Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Since Ban Ki-moon is the first Secretary-General from your region in sometime, could you tell us what do you think his regional affiliation represents in this whole thing, and what do you expect him to do now? Do you expect him to come up with a statement that will fix this thing, and how come, last year, you didn't run any candidate for Secretary-General?
President Chen: A Wall Street Journal editorial stated that Ban Ki-moon is not the "King of the UN." He has no right to do what he has done. He cannot presumptuously interpret the content and spirit of UN Resolution 2758. As Taiwan is not mentioned in the 153 words of the resolution, how could he make the interpretation that Taiwan is a part of the PRC? This is misuse of power and a breach of law. As the UN Secretary-General, he should not have done this. How did he dare do it? I believe he was influenced and supported by China. Fortunately, the truth of this issue has been verified. The governments of the United States, Japan, and Australia do not agree with Ban's interpretation on Resolution 2758, which stretched the truth and went beyond his authority. The US, Japan, and Australia have already told the UN and Ban Ki-moon that the interpretation was wrong. These three countries do not accept that Taiwan is a part of the PRC. Can Ban not make a correction now? Can there really be no need for him to make an adjustment? We hope that Secretary-General Ban's wrong interpretation will not lead to misunderstanding and distortion in the international community.
We still believe, as does the United States, that justice and truth exist in the international society. On behalf of Taiwan's government and 23 million people, I would like to express our respect and gratitude to President Bush and his government. At least the US has done the right thing in this matter. We are grateful and we affirm US support.
[more]