Dear Mr. Tung Chee-hwa,

By MIKHAIL GORBACHEV ----
"Communism --- as the inventors of the theory imagined it --- never existed anywhere; not in Easter Europe, not in the USSR; what did exist was Stalinist socialism. That system had exhausted itself and was doomed to disappear."

"It is no any threat to Russian security because of the entry of Eastern European countries into NATO."

The Berlin Wall didn't come down in a day or even a season. The crisis in East Germany began four years before the dramatic events of 1989, and many miles away --- with perestroika and democratization in the Soviet Union. By the time discontent in East Germany had been transformed into a mass movement, the people there knew that my policy of "freedom of choice" was not just a propaganda slogan. They knew there would be no repeat of the events of the Prague Spring in 1968, and that Warsaw Pact tanks would not intervene. So they exercised their free choice by breaking down the wall.

I never regretted my decision. To resist the will of a people to save the doomed regime of Erich Honecker would have been hopeless. The use of force could have resulted in huge bloodbath --- after all, the desire for unification had seized millions of Germans in the fall of 1989 --- and might have led to a military confrontation between the superpowers. Even if we could have avoided that, intervention would have meant reversing the basic principles of my political philosophy. Military action, would have ruined the trust that we developing with the West and the United States, and would have cut off vital foreign economic and political support for perestroika. And it would have meant shooting ordinary people, which was against my moral principles. The cold war would have been revived and my political position as a whole would have been discredited.

At the time, nobody argued otherwise. None of the members of the Politburo, or indeed anyone from the senior Soviet leadership, suggested the use of force. Nobody recommended that Soviet troops in East Germany be mobilized. It's true that several generals privately discussed such a possibility --- and openly criticized me late for not sending in troops. But at the time, not even Marshal Yazov, the Defense minister and future coup leader, lobbied for intervention.

What was there to fight for?

Communism --- as the inventors of the theory imagined it --- never existed anywhere: not in Eastern Europe, not in the USSR. What did exist was Stalinist socialism. That system had exhausted itself and was doomed to disappear. As early as 1988, I insisted that the party abandon its monopoly on power, on property, on ideology. The idea was to liquidate the political power structures which had ruled Russia since Stalin's time.

Once the forces of glasnost and democracy were let loose, they worked in unpredictable ways. They were decisive in spurring changes in Eastern Europe, but I can't deny that those same forces encouraged separatist tendencies in the national republics of the USSR. Now I see no threat to Russian security because of the entry of Eastern European countries into NATO. Yet their understandable early aversion to their "big brother to the East" has turned into a policy of refusing to have any significant relations with Russia. This is not good for Russia, nor for East Europe, nor the world.

In our views, communist China participates in international community could turn into a policy of improving to have any significant relations with Democratic countries.

The reports from Taiwan --- Taipei has admitted that the sale of an Israeli-made long-range radar system to Beijing poses "a serious threat to Taiwan."

It was reported in local papers yesterday that the radar system will greatly enhance mainland China's aerial power in the event of a conflict with the island.

Fielding questions from legislator yesterday, Defense Minister Tang Fei said that the capabilities of Beijing's latest purchase, an airborne warning and control system (AWACS) were much better than Taipei's existing E-2T early warning system.

Tang said that the Ministry of National Defense had been aware of Beijing's plans to make the purchase for some time via intelligence sources.

He added that if the radar system was assembled as part of a fighting force and used in attack capabilities that it "would influence our defense capabilities."

He said that although the radar was designed for self-defense purposes, the distance across the Taiwan Strait was so short that the radar could be used as part of a first strike.

Tang said he did not believe that Beijing made the purchase specifically to attack Taiwan. Rather Beijing had the aim of gaining more international clout overall, Tang said, citing Beijing's other armory, such as its long-range missiles which can strike places as far away as Hawaii.

The US$250 million system will allow mainland China to detect planes and missiles entering its territory at a low altitude rendering its outdate fighter force much more effective. The purchase was made despite protests from Washington who ordered an embargo on sales of arms to the PRC since the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown. Israel has justified the sale by saying no U.S. technology was used in its design.

In related reports, Tang said that President Lee Teng-hui is constitutionally authorized to order military action if Taiwan is attacked, the state-run Central News Agency reported.

Lee is allowed to declare war immediately, without the consent of the legislature, owing to the urgency of the situation, Tang said,

However, if the ROC intends to provoke a war, the decision must first be ratified by the legislature.

Meanwhile, local Chinese-language media reported that a study conducted by over 20 U.S. academics has found that there is a high consensus in the U.S. to take military action to protect Taiwan, regardless of whether it is the military, civic leaders or ordinary people.

The study found that the people of the U.S. would tolerate up to 17,000 to 20,000 casualties if a war broke out.

Taiwan News, November 9, 1999 ---
Minister of National Defense Tang Fei said yesterday (Nov. 8, 1999) the ministry has been aware some time that China is purchasing a long-range radar system from Israel that will pose a greater threat to Taiwan's security.

"We had already known about this purchase a long time ago," said Tang at a meeting with the defense committee of the Legislature. "The model they are acquiring has multi-functions and remarkable capabilities. It will pose as serious threat to us."

According to Western military experts, China had finally decided to purchase the Israeli-designed radar system, also know as Airborne Warning and Control System, after a long decision-making process. A Russian plan had been delivered to Israel to be equipped with the new radar system, experts said.

The system will allow China to detect planes and missiles entering its territory at low altitude, rendering China's outdated fighter force much more effective, said a report yesterday.

Tang also spoke about the long-awaited National Defense Bill, saying it is important to legislate it as soon as possible so that a clear commanding system can be established. He urged that the bill be enacted by the end of the legislative session in late December, adding that the session should be extended if necessary to ensure the passage of the legislation.

On the proposed mission National Security Council, which is to be the highest decision-making body when a war breaks out, Tang said it will be convened by the president, who is constitutionally authorized to take military command. However, the president will have to seek prior permission from the Legislature before he can declare war.

However, if the country is under attack, the president is eligible to order a counterattack and seek approval from the Legislature afterwards. But several law-makers opposed the idea, saying it would give the president too much power.

"If the president can order military action without the Legislature's oversight, what will happen if he abuses his power?" asked Democratic Progressive Party legislator Michael Tsai.

It is unsettling to note the unabated arms race going on between Taiwan and mainland China. This is not only dangerous but also foolish because it benefits no one but the arms merchants.

Last week, Academia Sinica President Lee Yuan-tseh said war should not be a means of resolving disputed. Only democratization, globalization and internationalization can make war obsolete, he said.

Of course, no nation can afford to ignore security, least of which Taiwan, which faces a hostile and powerful behemoth bent on using force to achieve the goal of reunification. Beijing still believes in war as the last resort, unfortunately.

But Taipei should also ponder a more serious question: is an arms race the best way to defend itself against the mainland? "It is unwise for us to spend so much money on national defense," Lee pointed out in a speech.

What, then, is the intelligent way? Lee, the Nobel laureate, rightly believes that war would be rendered obsolete if democracy prevailed in the world, pointing out that it's unlikely war will break out between two democracies.

It is, therefore, more important for democratic Taiwan to influence mainland China, a communist dictatorship, to democratize. This may take time, but it's the rights way. Confrontation and provocation are the wrong way. An arms race is the least desirable way as it tends to increase the danger of war.

Last week Defense Minister Tang Fei asked the legislative Yuan to increase the defense budget in 2001 by NT$40 billion, to some NT$300 billion, about 3 percent of the GDP. He told lawmakers that mainland China increased its defense spending in the new fiscal year by 80 billion yuan, roughly NT$300 billion.

Both sides should desist from engaging in this maddening arms race. Leaders of both sides should find a better way to resolve their dispute by peaceful means. They should increase exchanges and dialogue to reduce hostility. War will not resolve their dispute. One needs look no further than Kosovo and Chechnya to comprehend that reality.

Globalization and internationalization add democratized system can achieve mutual trust at cross-straits. The programmatic procedure for both sides should increase exchange and dialogue to resolve disquietude.

Facing the trend of globalization in mainland China, the Chinese government has no choice but to loosen up some of its communist's doctrine in exchange for political as well as economical resources from all over the world.

Taking into concern the enormous pressure from its exploring population, it is impossible for China to return to the way it was before - shutting itself from making contacts with the rest of the world. From the past up until now, wherever Chinese people go will there be a Chinese community and a friendly interaction with the local residents, especially in free countries.

While its economy is blooming, the Chinese government should seize the opportunity to attract other countries to invest in China, and granting certain degrees of compromising on its "human-right" issue. Hence uniting its people together around the globe and strive to become a powerful and prosperous country in the twenty-first century.