Lee's speech on Oct 12, 2004

Lee calls president's speech deceptive

SIMPLY RHETORIC: The former president said that Taiwan and Republic of China were not synonymous, and that only constitutional reform could really save Taiwan

By Jewel Huang
STAFF REPORTER

Former president Lee Teng-hui yesterday said President Chen Shui-bian's National Day speech, which suggested "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" are synonyms, was merely deceptive rhetoric, and said that a new constitution was the fundamental means by which Taiwan could defend itself from Chinese threats.

But after offering this blunt criticism, Lee toned down his disapproval of Chen's speech, saying that he understood Chen's difficulty because he had also said "the Republic of China is on Taiwan" when he was the president, and "this is the way things are," Lee said.

Lee made the remarks during a symposium in which many Japanese and Taiwanese academics discussed the evolution and development of the constitutions of Taiwan and Japan and the stability and security of Asia, held by the group Taiwan Advocates yesterday. Lee gave a speech entitled "Only if Taiwan makes a new constitution can the stability and security of Asia be permanently assured."

During his speech, Lee refuted Chen's position as outlined in his National Day speech that "the Republic of China is Taiwan, and Taiwan is the Republic of China" as rhetoric that "deceived himself as well as others."

"Besides, there was no `1992 consensus.' I was the president at that time and I knew there was no such thing," Lee said.

As Taiwan's president for 12 years, Lee said that he deeply believed that the concept of a "Republic of China" was simply a case of the "emperor's new clothes," designed to cheat the people of Taiwan.

"No one in international society knows what `Republic of China' is," Lee said.

"If the people of Taiwan continue to be limited to the context of `Republic of China,' Taiwan will neither join the international community nor resolve the instability in the Taiwan Strait," Lee continued. "If the people of Taiwan don't terminate this abnormality of Taiwan by making a new constitution, and choose to escape from reality with the excuse of maintaining the `status quo,' it will be an irresponsible attitude for ourselves, our descendants and the peace and stability of Asia."

Lee said that the Constitution of the Republic of China does not meet the present conditions of Taiwan, and only traps Taiwan into the legal snare of "one China."

Lee stressed that the Republic of China maintains the "one China" system in jurisprudence, and thus emboldens China to invade Taiwan thereby threatening to spark the biggest crisis in the region.

"China will continue to take advantage of such legal snares and will disseminate propaganda to the international society that the Taiwan issue is an internal affair of China, which will eventually subject Taiwan to China's military threat," Lee said.

The fundamental solution to protect Taiwan from the threat of China is to create a believable and reasonable constitution for Taiwan, Lee said, adding that he anticipates achieving this goal by 2007.

Lee also suggested that Taiwan be ruled under a three-branch system, instead of the current five-branch government and the new constitution should state clearly whether Taiwan's political system is a presidential system or a Cabinet system, so that the government and legislature could have a balanced division of responsibility.

Chen's speech a `stepping stone' to cross-strait talks

FOCUS ON ACHIEVABLE: Officials and analysts say the president's national day address showed a willingness to accept ambiguity in order to find practical solutions

By Joy Su
STAFF REPORTER

President Chen Shui-bian's speech on Sunday will serve as a stepping stone to cross-strait negotiations that ensure parity and dignity by pushing aside politics and focusing instead on practical, achievable projects, according to Mainland Affairs Council Vice Chairman Chiu Tai-san.

"In the past, we've had good experiences with negotiations because the basis and foundation for these negotiations was that both sides were willing to focus on matters that could concretely be solved," Chiu said yesterday during a forum to examine the impact of Chen's speech on cross-strait relations.

A proposal to establish a 1992 meeting in Hong Kong as the basis for future negotiation naturally begs the question of what was concluded at the meeting.

The meeting took place from Oct. 26 and 29 and was conducted by then Straits Exchange Foundation legal head Shi Hwei-yow and Zhou Ning, a representative from the foundation's counterpart, China's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS).

HISTORICAL BAGGAGE

The Hong Kong meeting was called to discuss cooperation on certified mail and professional certification. No agreements were signed due to differences in interpreting the "one China" principle.

Taiwan had proposed that each party articulate it's stance on the "one China" principle orally, without putting pen to paper. While China had agreed to this in a phone call to the foundation on Nov. 3, it later proposed that each party's interpretation be made clear through written exchange of letters or fax. Since Taiwan refused, the matter was left unresolved.

However, analysts yesterday said that it was precisely the lack of a consensus that served as the main strategic thrust of Chen's speech.

AMBIGUITY IS GOOD

"The speech solves the problem of the `one China' principle with ambiguity. If both sides are willing to accept this ambiguity, than a new beginning is possible," Lo Chih-cheng, executive director of the Institute for National Policy Research.

Lo said Chen's speech had to be considered as a response to China's May 17 statement which reiterated the "one China" principle but also put forth seven points that touched on possibilities for cross-strait exchange.

"If China is willing to accept this ambiguity, then we can move to the next step -- the seven points issued in the statement," Lo said.

Analysts also pointed to another important aspect of Chen's speech -- his willingness to pursue solutions that are "not necessarily perfect, but acceptable."

They said that amounts to a recognition of the search for an unattainable "perfect" solution can hinder the possible attainable of a "good" solution.

National Chengchi University political science professor Chao Chien-min said there was a need to move towards a "workable" solution.

"If Taiwan is not satisfied with the status quo and is willing to work to change the situation, then ?we need to find a workable space for this," he said.

According to Chao, the president's speech can be interpreted as a proposal to allow negotiations on matters that can be discussed or as an agreement to refrain from debating the issue of sovereignty.

"In politics, you have to achieve a level of workability, a basis from which to work, or else the two sides will just drift away from each other," Chao said.

He said Chen's extension of goodwill in the past was unable to bring about an impasse for China that would force reciprocity.

He said that without a workable framework, it was like throwing cotton, instead of a ball, into the opponent's court.

IMPERFECT SOLUTION

Chiu said that the willingness to settle for an imperfect solution was in effect the creation of a new space for discussion on practical issues.

"Given all our differences, Chen is choosing to move away from politicized issues. Cargo and passenger flights are something that we can really do, and it is something that we are willing to try," Chiu said.

However, if you [China] are not willing to negotiate on this, then give me a list of what is acceptable for negotiation to you," Chiu said.

He said there was a need to create space for discussion by identifying practical issues that can be separated from the politics of the "one China" principle.

"President Chen is not avoiding addressing the `one China' principle ? He concedes that cross-strait development could result in a situation that everyone deems as imperfect, but that all would find acceptable," Chiu said.

Beijing rejects President Chen's call for dialogue

AP AND AFP , SHANGHAI AND TAIPEI

China's state media yesterday rejected President Chen Shui-bian's Double Ten National Day call for peace talks with Beijing, saying it was "too insincere and vague to be treated seriously."

In a speech on Sunday, Chen urged China to begin peace talks so the rivals can avoid war.

"Because we can't com-municate, there's a lot of misunderstanding," Chen said.

As is often the case, the Beijing government has not responded directly to the overture.

However, the state-run China Daily, often used as a medium to communicate the country's policies, ran a front-page commentary citing researchers accusing Chen of "playing word games."

"The researchers said Chen's peace overture was `too insincere and too vague to be treated seriously by the mainland,'" it said.

It added, "He did not spell out what he meant by the proposal."

The China Daily said Chen's refusal to accept the "one China" principle, which it contends was accepted by both sides in a 1992 "consensus" would prevent progress toward a rapprochement.

"If he continues to reject the consensus reached at the 1992 meeting as he did before, his proposal will be tantamount to nonsense and will be of no use to help jump-start" talks, the paper cited Liu Guoshen, president of the Academy of Taiwan Research at Xiamen University, as saying. "It seems that Chen is playing with words again."

Wu Nengyuan, head of Taiwan studies at China's Fujian Academy of Social Sciences, acknowledged the apparent softening of Chen's stance: "The key issue remains accepting the `one China' principle. If Taiwan does not accept it, other statements have no meaning and also no sincerity."

Speech sought agreement to differ

President Chen Shui-bian's Double Ten National Day speech has received mixed reviews at home and abroad. In a diverse international community and a complex domestic environment, it is difficult to come up with a political discourse that pleases everyone. Chen's main message can be summarized as urging a return to the "middle way" that he promoted in 2000 in order to ease cross-strait tensions and seek peaceful solutions.

Both pro-independence and pro-China advocates can find in Chen's speech things to like and dislike. For example, the Taiwan Solidarity Union agreed with Chen's statement that "Taiwan is the Republic of China, and the Republic of China is Taiwan," but found it difficult to accept his proposition that "both sides use the basis of the 1992 meeting in Hong Kong" to seek possible schemes that are "not necessarily perfect but acceptable." The pan-blue camp in turn questions the possibility that Chen accepts the arrangement of "one country, two systems."

Of course, Chen will not accept such an arrangement. That is why he steered away from the terms "1992 consensus" and "1992 one China principle," and spoke instead of using "the basis of the 1992 meeting in Hong Kong." He did so because there was actually no consensus reached in 1992 and the meeting held in Hong Kong was to resolve issues arising from cross-strait exchanges and interactions. It was an occasion when both sides put aside political controversies to seek solutions. This spirit of seeking commonalities among differences is desperately needed under the current circumstances of Beijing and Taipei having little trust in each other. Chen took the initiative to hold out an olive branch and suggested using the practical issue of charter flights for passengers and cargo as a starting point for dialogue. Now it is up to Beijing to respond.

Taiwan wants peace across the Taiwan Strait, but peace will not simply descend from heaven; it can only result from a complex negotiation process. Taiwan should not lose control over the process by which peace can be achieved. China has deployed more than 600 missiles targeting Taiwan, and neither Taiwan nor the international community can pretend that they do not exist. It is for this reason that Taiwan should not forego its arms procurement. Even if China and Taiwan engage in direct talks, Taiwan's arms procurements and preparedness are essential to create military confidence mechanisms that can be testified to by the international community. Ensuring a proper military balance across the Taiwan Strait is essential to prevent military adventurism that might destabilize the region.

In terms of international politics, many countries in the region agree that the tension across the Taiwan Strait cannot be ignored. Threatened by China, this nation can appreciate the anxiety of the international community over this tension. Taiwan has worked hard to find a solution, and its efforts have been rec-ognized by both the US and Japan. Chen's speech is further proof that this nation is not the troublemaker in the region.

Chen's speech was a response to China's May 17 statement about cross-strait negotiations, direct links and trade. It remains unclear whether China's leaders will see in the speech the differences between China and Taiwan that will lead to disaster or the similarities between them that will lead to peace.

Taiwan must defend itself

By Lily Chung

I find it interesting that the pan-blue or Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) supporters have not changed much since the Chiang Kai-Shek (蔣介石) period. Do you all remember who supported Chiang with weapons to fight in World War II? Now those people expect to have the same treatment! Chiang obviously had not done a good job in fighting, so he lost China. I was told by an American friend who had fought in China's battlefields that in one particular battle, Chiang's people did not even show up to cover them on the front line as promised, and caused five American deaths. US General Joseph Stillwell also accused Chiang of being a coward for not fighting in the front lines.

Pan-blue supporters seem to have the same ideology as Chiang. But unfortunately, they are worse! They are used to getting everything for free, so now they still ask for free weapons from the USA! I think Americans have learned their lessons, but have the KMT supporters?

They are truly thieves. They have stolen enough from the Taiwanese people, and now they are taking away our ability to defend ourselves! They act and think exactly like those Chinese on the other side. They are the most dangerous enemies, worse than China for all Taiwanese.

I remember seeing a historical film about Texans fighting for independence from Mexico saying, "it seems only after death that I can see life!" How sad that was! But they are willing to sacrifice everything for freedom! I do not believe in this century Taiwanese have to fight the same way for our freedom, but we definitely need to have the same determination to defend our homeland!

5,000 years is enough

By Chen Ming-chung

Your editorial was excellent as usual (Chen has a historic opportunity, Oct. 6, page 8). However, one aspect of Taiwan's relationship to China needs to be clarified.

Taiwan was conquered and occupied by force by the "Qing Dynasty," according to Chinese history. Japanese history and literature more accurately call this the "Qing nation."

The difference is Chinese as a whole were taught to think of "China" as a continuous empire, to be united by any means, as even now touted by China and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) alike. This thinking benefits the rulers, but is detrimental to the people.

As a matter of fact, the "Qing nation" was not a typical Chinese empire of the Han race. Even Chinese history says "China" was conquered by a barbaric outside race. Therefore, Taiwan is no more "Chinese territory" than other regions conquered by the "Qing nation," such as Korea, Mongolia and indeed "China," as it was then occupied by ethnic Han people. The truth is, Han China never occupied Taiwan. Therefore, the world can no more claim Taiwan to be part of China than Korea or Mongolia or many southeast Asian territories.

After Sun Yat-sen's Chinese revolution, the Qing nation was destroyed. "China" had a window of opportunity to modernize and to civilize. But alas, with this great Chinese empire mentality and thinking that guns [now missiles] can get whatever the rulers want, war after war was waged by warlords like Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong, both with the ambition to "unify" China. And the Chinese people endured a century and more of misery.

The KMT fell because its own failed imperial ambition to "unify" China was the main reason China remained backward and poor, and it became a fertile ground to breed communism. The truth is China will never be great until its ruler begins to respect every Chinese and their rights and wishes. Most of these wishes will be benign and peaceful if they have been taught the truth and learned to tell right from wrong.

For that matter, all Chinese should respect Taiwanese too, and respect their rights and differences, as well as our shared wishes of peace and prosperity. Wielding guns, missiles and crooked ideology can only cause more resentment and stronger resistance from Taiwan.

Taiwanese will get over another hurdle and become more democratic and secure by discarding this 5,000-year-old monster dragon of imperialism. The December legislative elections, if Taiwanese can be educated and taught the truth, will put this crooked ideology of "unification" back into its cage of 12 percent representation of Mainlander population, excluding the small percentage of Mainlanders who identify with Taiwan.