Dear Mr. Prime Minister John Howard,
　 　Mr. Secretary-General George Robertson,
　　 Mr. Trent Lott,
　　 Mr. Denny Hastert,

The first military manifestation of the Clinton doctrine of expansion of democracy, the Australian scholar warned of the implication of the Kosovo Zeitgeist for Taiwan.

He said that most of mainland China's leader suspected that they might need to go to war to oppose military interference, such as the NATO action against Serbia. He feared that "sentiment in the leadership has been moved --- above all by the Kosovo Zeitgeist --- closer to the desire to teach Taiwan a lesson."

Calling on both Taipei and Beijing to work beyond rhetoric, Austin opined that "if Taiwan pushes China further, appeal to the U.S.A will not save it from severe punishment."

He added that "once the punishment action occurred, the spirit of deterioration in China-U.S. relations would end, and bottom out at sustained military confrontation of a cold war type with the Taiwan Strait as the dividing line similar to the inner German border during the U.S.-Soviet stand-off."

Dr. Desmond Ball of the strategic and defense studies center of the Australian national university gave a briefing on the evolving security architecture of the Asia-Pacific region pointed out that China has emerged as the country of most concern in the region."

He further stated that "it is essential that China been engaged in multilateral dialogues, confidence-building arrangements preventive diplomacy, and other forms of security cooperation in the region.

During mainland Chinese President Jiang Zemin's recent visit to Australia, Australian prime minister John Howard had made it clear in public and in private that Australia believed the current tensions should be resolved peacefully, without any resort to military force.

Would it be coming truth at "one country, one system." That is one country --- one democratic system.

The people's Republic of China celebrated its 50th founding anniversary a week ago, while the Republic of China on Taiwan observes its 88th birthday tomorrow. The two Chinese states have been separated by civil war for exactly half a century, and reunification is not in sight. Will the two sides get farther and farther apart, or will they move closer and closer toward reunification?

Indications are that reunification will remain an elusive goal if both sides don't make fundamental changes in their cross-strait policies. For Beijing, the "one country, two systems" formula for reunification has been a nonstarter from the very beginning. For Taipei, its visceral mistrust of Beijing, not to mention deep-seated hostility, makes reunification impossible.

At the core of the impasse is the political chasm that separates them. It is communism vs. capitalism or democracy vs. authoritarianism. They are as different as oil and water, which don't mix.

Since the mainland's opening and reform that began two decades ago, the difference has become less glaring. Mainland China had changed so much as to become a market-oriented, quasi-capitalist country. It has attracted foreign investors, who swarmed to the mainland in droves. As a result, mainland China today is no longer a communist monolith of the Mao era, but a place where "socialism with Chinese characteristics" flourishes.

Still, the mainland is ruled by a political system that tolerates no opposition and dissent. It is a one-party system that allows no political challenge to its power. It is basically undemocratic. In short, the gap between Taiwan and mainland China is caused not so much by their economic differences as by their political differences. It is democracy that sets them apart.

Over the past two decades, Beijing has called for reunification under Deng Xiaoping's formula of "one country, two systems." So far, the appeal has failed miserably. Now, Deng's successor Jiang Zemin has become increasingly impatient and has repeatedly threatened to use military force to achieve unification.

Increasingly the two sides are drifting apart instead of moving closer toward unification. Cross-strait tensions have mounted, not diminished, as relations have deteriorated. Few people believe that reunification is now a realistic goal. Polls show that the majority of Taiwan's residents are in favor of maintaining the status quo rather than becoming part of a communist country which violates human rights and suppresses civil liberties. In a sense, it is unfair for Beijing to blame Lee Teng-hui for fanning separatism in Taiwan.

No leader in Taiwan, pro-independence or pro-unification, would like to see the people of Taiwan give up their democracy as the price for reunification.

They would like to be part of a free and democratic China. When the PRC staged a lavish birthday party last week to show off its military might and economic achievements, it should have known that such a show would only underwhelm Taiwan. The tiny island would like to see the mainland demonstrate its political achievements in areas of human rights and freedom of speech. Unfortunately, such achievements are mostly non-existent.

This is not denigrate the impressive advances made by mainland China in the last 20 years. Its per capita gross domestic product of US$2,800 (in 1996) compared favorably with the Philippines' US$2,600. Beijing boasts the world's second largest foreign reserves. It is nuclear power and world's 11th largest trading country, excluding Hong Kong.

But what Taiwan is eager to see is a democratic mainland, allowing free elections and multiparty competition. Taiwan would never want to join a country which stifles free speech and bans free assembly. Without democracy, communist China will never be able to win over Taiwan to its embrace, sans the use of force. For mainland China to achieve reunification, the best formula is not "one country, two systems" but "one country, one system." The is a democratic system --- often known as "the worst system except for all others."

Not only will this system will appeal to Taiwan, it will also help strengthen the Beijing regime, which is intrinsically weak and unstable. This weakness and instability are evident in the regime's suppression of dissent. A regime that survives on brute force can't be expected to last long. Just look at the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union and its allies in Eastern Europe. Mainland China faces the same fate if it refuses to change.

It is, therefore, time for the Chinese communists to abandon their "four cardinal principles" the gist of which is, simply put, the dictatorship of the Communist Party. This is an outdated Marxist-Leninist-Maoist dogma that belongs in the dustbin of history.

Shedding the shackles of this pernicious ideology, mainland China will see a new birth and will gain new strength. Above all, it will have a strong appeal to the 22 million people in Taiwan who will naturally be attracted by an irresistible force of reunification, just like a ripened apple falling from the tree. Taiwan and the mainland can only be reunited naturally under one system, not two.

However, the Beijing government should concern about the wills of Taiwanese people that party to party's negotiation is over.

Excerpts from a speech given by Dr. David Tsai, president of the Center for Taiwan International Relations, on September 25 in Los Angeles:

In view of the recent disastrous earthquake in Taiwan, I think it would be better to focus on international relations in terms of Taiwan-China-U.S. relations. I know many of you are very mad at the United Nations for its decision to wait for China's approval before giving aid to Taiwan. Your anger is justified. I was angry, too.

China professed to be concerned with the earthquake victims, yet denied the Russian disaster relief teams' request for passage to Taiwan, forcing a detour and a 12-hour delay in the Russian relief efforts, according to a Russian news report. What kind of concern is that?

In contrast, Taiwan over the years has generously provided assistance to many countries suffering from their own natural disasters, including China. For example, during China's disastrous floods, Taiwan provided more than US$40 million in aid. This was dome strictly on a humanitarian basis without trying to take advantage of the situation for political gain.

But China's foreign minister Tang Jiaxuan had the audacity to take the credit on behalf of the people of Taiwan in thanking the international community for its assistance and goodwill.

As a friend and ally, the United States should help Taiwan in its efforts to become a member of the world's community. We need more American friends who are convinced that the current unjust situation only strengthens their belief that Taiwan should be admitted to the World Health Organization and other international organizations.

In any discussion of the U.S.-Taiwan-China relations, two sets of policy documents are always mentioned: the "Three Communiques" and the Taiwan Relations Act. There is a third important document, the "Reagan Six Assurances" which often gets overlooked.

First, let's review the Three Communique. In the Shanghai Communique of 1972, "the United States acknowledges the Chinese position that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China." The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interests in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.

The important thing to remember is that the Nixon Administration only acknowledged the Chinese position, but did not specifically accept that position. However, on the settlement of the Taiwan question, the U.S. position is very clear. It should be peaceful.

In the 1979 Communique Establishing Diplomatic Relations, the United States recognizes "the Government of the PRC as the sole legal government of China," and again acknowledges "the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China." The Carter Administration again acknowledges the Chinese position. It did not say it accepted the Chinese position.

In the 1982 Communique regarding arms sales to Taiwan, the Reagan Administration repeated the previous administrations language that the U.S. Government recognized the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledged the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.

In all communiques, the United States never accepted the Chinese position of the "One China" principle.

Now, let's examine the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 and the Reagan Administration's Six Assurances of 1982. The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) has two most fundamental functions: First, it is to help maintain peace, security, and stability in the Western Pacific, and it spells out the US position on its defense commitments to Taiwan. Second, it authorizes the continuation of commercial and cultural relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, and it established the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) to take care of these relations.

One: It declares "that peace and stability in the area in the political, security, and economic interests of the United States, and are matters of international concern." In other words, it is NOT a matter of China's international affairs, period!

Two: It makes clear to China "that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means." In other words, it tells China: "Don't contemplate the military option!"

In the application of American laws, the TRA treats Taiwan as a friendly state. Specifically, the TRA says "Whenever the laws of the United States refer or relate to foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entitles, such terms shall include, and such laws shall apply with respect to Taiwan."

I have a very special gift for you tonight. This is President Reagan's Six Assurances to Taiwan. Master this and you are a better expert than some of President Clinton's China specialists who did not know such an important policy document exists.

According to Ambassador John Holdridge, these six assurances of President Reagan were conveyed to Taiwan and reported to Congress in late July, 1982. Specially they promised;

■ The U.S. would not set a date for termination of arms sales to Taiwan;
■ The U.S. would not change the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act;
■ The U.S. would not consult with China in advance before making decisions about arms sales to Taiwan;
■ The U.S. would not act as mediator between Taiwan and China;
■ The U.S. would not alter its position about the sovereignty of Taiwan ... and would not pressure Taiwan to enter into negotiations with China;
■ The U.S. would not formally recognize China's sovereignty over Taiwan.

Now, I would like to conclude by offering the following observations: First, Taiwan has come a long way. It is a thriving democracy. We need to maintain and nurture it. Second, Taiwan needs friends; all the friends we can get. We need good American friends who will support us in times of need. We have a massage to convey and aspirations to share with our friends. We need our friends and supporters to convince the administration and policy makers that the wishes of Taiwan's citizens have to be respected. They can not be discounted in favor of the opinions of China's leaders. We need to remind the U.S. administration of the importance of abiding by the Taiwan Relations Act and the Reagan Six Assurances. Third, Taiwan needs international friends for all the support we can get. Taiwan has been a model global citizen and it has a great deal mote to contribute to the international community to help its development.