UN Bid and Its Impacts on Taiwan-US Relations—Is There a Lack of Understanding of Taiwan's Democracy?

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte has expressed that the U.S. is opposed to a Taiwan referendum on UN membership, declaring such move as a step towards Taiwan independence. Negroponte noted that President Chen had promised to the U.S. that he would not alter Taiwan’s status quo, including changing Taiwan’s official name. However, President Chen and James Huang, Minister of Foreign Affairs, responded that the referendum on UN membership was not changing the status quo, and such example showed American lack of understanding of Taiwan’s democracy.

The U.S. government in its policy toward Taiwan continues to follow past practices, which was catered for the two Chiang leaders and the KMT authoritarian regime. In other words, as long as the U.S. obtained a promise from the head of state in Taiwan, there was no need to give consideration to public opinion. However, after democratization in Taiwan, information has become more open and civic society has developed with full vitality. Hence, the sentiments of the Taiwanese people toward Taiwan’s international unfavorable situation grew naturally more discontent, and the public proceeded to demand further government action.

It is regrettable that communications between the U.S. and Taiwan has suffered the influence of the U.S. unilateral term of “One China.” This can be seen in the example of the U.S. strictly limiting and checking on transits and visits by Taiwanese elected leaders. If both sides have this type of relationship, how can a good relationship and a smooth channel of communications exist between both sides? Under a circumstance where an official channel of communications between both sides is deficient, naturally relations are not bound to be good. If the U.S. only cares to raise opposition to Taiwan’s actions and refuses to reflect on the reasons why U.S.-Taiwan relations have deteriorated, it is more likely that relations between both sides will worsen.

Moreover, the U.S. does not have official relations with North Korea, but it has held secret and open talks between both sides in order to resolve the North Korean nuclear problem. On the contrary, in the past few years, the U.S. has been consistently opposing to Taiwan’s plans for holding referenda. Former Deputy Secretary of State Randy Shriver said that the U.S. was not opposed to Taiwan holding referenda in “form,” but they opposed the “contents” of the UN referendum. Nevertheless, 70% of the Taiwanese people support the topic of joining the UN. With such numbers, does the U.S. still believe that holding the referendum is not necessary?

According the reports by the Central News Agency, Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials are afraid that after the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State’s public statement, U.S. President Bush will most likely make an open standpoint against the Taiwan referendum on UN membership during the APEC summit on September 8.

If under tremendous pressure from the China, the U.S. opts to protect its self-interests and is unable to persist in the principles of democracy and freedom, Taiwan will be incapable of preventing the U.S. from damaging Taiwan’s international position. History between U.S.-Taiwan relations has shown these facts: President Nixon signed the Shanghai Communiqué in Shanghai on February 1972; President Carter established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China on January 1, 1979, undoubtedly sending a shock wave to the KMT government at that time.

If in fact, Taiwan and the U.S. are mutually best friends and the request for UN membership is in reality a critical problem, there is no reason why both sides should not hold high-level bilateral, and even multilateral, meetings in order to resolve this problem.

Taiwan’s Strategies towards Human Right Issues in China (Part II)

The followings are my suggestions for Taiwan’s strategies towards China’s human right issues:

I. Principles
Taiwan’s strategies should avoid going against the non-interference principle addressed in international law. Thus, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) seem to be the better initiators for advancing human right movements in China. The government sector, instead, can play a supporting role to assist and integrate NGOs to enhance efficiency when resources are limited.

II. Mobilization

A. Exceptional treatments for Chinese or Tibetan democratic advocates
Taiwan’s government should not treat those international refugees who hold identifications issued by the UN or other international organizations like ordinary Chinese citizens, since they cannot be viewed as Chinese citizens anymore. Regarding Tibetan exiles, the Taiwanese government has to recognize their identifications issued both by the Tibetan government in exile and Refugees International in order to show respect for the self-determination right of Tibetans.

Also, the Taiwanese government should treat those whose passports have been cancelled by the PRC government due to their activities related to China’s democratic movements or exiled Tibetans in India like normal foreign visitors, rather than put them under the category of “Chinese” citizens and apply related regulations.

B. Hastening to pass the political asylum law

So far Taiwan has not enacted any political asylum law; therefore, when dealing with Chinese democratic advocates, Taiwan has to either arrest them according to the State Security Law of the People’s Republic of China, or repatriate them according to the Statute Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area. The third way, however, is to send these people to the third country for possible political asylum.

Since the Taiwanese government keeps claiming that human right is one of its national concerns, we hope that the government can initiate the political asylum law as soon as possible, so as to protect those who have been oppressed cruelly on the grounds of their efforts for promoting human right and democracy in China or in the region of Asia.

C. Discuss human right issues in bilateral meetings

We understand that since human right issue is very sensitive and can be accused of intervening in the other countries’ domestic affairs, so it may not become an important agenda on any official meetings between China and Taiwan. However, it should not be the case for those bilateral meetings consisted of NGOs from both sides. In other words, civil societies should play a more active role to encourage or even demand that human right issues need to be included in bilateral meetings between Taiwan and China.

D. Others

1. Organize activities that promote human right;
2. Create counter theory or any new argument against the “Beijing Consensus”;
3. Encourage NGOs to work with international organizations for supporting China’s human right movements;
4. Support Hong Kong’s democracy to be a model for China;
5. Market and promote Taiwan’s democratic experience;
6. Enhance cooperation with the Tibetan government in exile;
7. Encourage the human right-related research and other activities.

Taiwan’s Strategies towards Human Right Issues in China (Part I)

It will be necessary for China to legitimate its rule by securing human right, and the Chinese government should not abuse human right in the name of economic development or national security.

China’s developmental strategy has shifted from the “peaceful change” vs. “anti-peaceful change” in the early 1990s, to the “Washington Consensus” vs. “Beijing Consensus” in the 21st century. It implies that the Chinese government has become more and more active in its foreign strategies both in arguments and actions. Different from China’s previously passive “anti-peaceful change,” China is now on the initiative to propose its “Beijing Consensus.”

So far China has exploited multilateral frameworks such as Boao Forum, East Asian Summit, Asia-Europe Meeting (AEM), and Asian-African Conference to market its own developmental model. The Chinese government claims that its “Beijing Consensus” could become a new developmental paragon and beat the “Washington Consensus,” which emphasizes economic liberalism and democracy. In other words, China has turned to the new posture of so-called “peaceful competition” and “peaceful rising,” so as to re-shape its national developmental strategy in the 21st century.

Ideology is the biggest difference between the “Beijing Consensus” and the “Washington Consensus.” The former emphasizes authoritarian rule, while the latter highlights democracy. The Chinese government has tried to justify its authoritarian rule with the “Beijing Consensus” argument that allows it to continue the anti-human right actions at home, such as suppressing the social discontent and cracking down on political dissents.

The “Beijing Consensus” claims that economic development is the only goal, and for this purpose authoritarian rule is much useful than democracy is. The Chinese government might acknowledge the relevance between democracy and economic development, but it also believes that there still exist different moral realms. In my view, although it is still debatable whether authoritarian rule or democracy would work more efficiently for economic development, what undisputable is that human right is guaranteed under democracy.

We should recognize that economic development itself is not the purpose, but raising living standards is. The “Beijing Consensus” therefore makes a mistake, since its aim is to develop economy at the cost of human right completely and thus misunderstands which should be the purpose and which is the means for it. However, we are not saying that China should develop its country according to the “Washington Consensus,” but China’s development should be based on its people’s needs. It will be necessary for China to legitimate its rule by securing human right, and the Chinese government should not abuse human right in the name of economic development or national security.

Key Issue of Non-Traditional Security Threats: WHO Warns of Global Epidemic Risk

According to BBC news, the World Health Organization annual report stresses that infectious diseases are spreading faster than ever and new diseases are emerging at the “historically unprecedented” rate. With about 2.1 billion airline passengers flying each year, there is a high risk of major epidemic such as AIDS, SARS or Ebola fever.

The WHO urges increased efforts to combat disease outbreaks, and sharing of virus data, skills and technology is crucial to help develop vaccines and curb viruses like avian flu. The WHO also warns that without global collaboration, there could be devastating impacts on the global economy and international security.

Recently, Jakarta refused to share its samples with the WHO, and China only started sharing its H5N1 samples in June. Thus, the WHO report urges that it is necessary for governments to be open about disease outbreaks.

“Co-operation is crucial to combat outbreaks, and given today’s universal vulnerability to these threats, better security calls for global solidarity,” the
WHO Director-General Margaret Chan says in an introduction to the report.

Ironically, we need to address here again that so far China has blocked Taiwan’s six attempts to join the WHO. Without having full membership in the WHO, it is very difficult for Taiwan to cope with the emerging non-traditional security threat mentioned above.

When WHO Director-General Margaret Chan calls for global cooperation, she should first remind herself of the fact that Taiwan’s applying for membership in the WHO is a humanitarian but not a political issue.

Due to China’s claim over Taiwan, Taiwan’s health authorities cannot attend any WHO-sponsored meetings to discuss new ways to diagnose, monitor and control diseases. Even in emergencies and epidemics of infectious diseases, Taiwan is not allowed to co-ordinate with the WHO.

In any case, China’s blockage of Taiwan’s participation in the WHO will not only create negative impacts on the health of the island’s 23 million people, but also jeopardize the entire world in terms of the potential spread of fatal infectious diseases.

Should we view the WHO’s report or Margaret Chang’s statement as hypocrisy? We sincerely hope that our international friends can pay much more attention to Taiwan’s unhealthy exclusion from the WHO!

China suppresses Taiwan in the international arena at every turn

Let it be known to the Chinese government that participating in the international community is not only the will of 23 million Taiwanese people, but also the inalienable rights of the people on this island.

There are numerous examples of China preventing Taiwan from participating in the international arena. In the past two years, at least 18 incidents involved China demanding Taiwan to change its official title to “China Taiwan” or “China Taipei.” Examples include downgrading Taiwan’s membership status to “non-sovereign region member” at the World Organization for Animal Health, demanding nations to recognize that Taiwan is a part of the People’s Republic of China, and preventing Taiwan from joining the United Nations or World Health Organization. China has also made similar demands to Taiwan’s participation in NGOs, such as Bird Life International, Lions Clubs International, International Ship Suppliers Association, and International Society for Horticultural Science. In its effort to downplay Taiwan’s role in the international community, China no longer differentiate the nature of organizations that Taiwan participates. Whenever opportunity presents itself, China will do everything in its power to deny the existence of Taiwan.

In the last two years, China has had Grenada, Senegal, Chad, and Costa Rica terminate their diplomatic ties with Taiwan in exchange for China’s monetary aid. For example, in January 2005, when China and Grenada formally established diplomatic relations, China pledged $250 million worth of monetary aid to its new ally. That same year in October, China pledged $600 million to Senegal shortly after forming diplomatic relations with that country. Last December, when Chad established diplomatic relations with China, Chadian president was already given $50 million personally from the Chinese government. This June, China promised to give $430 million to Costa Rica.

In the face of China’s rising status, Taiwan’s situation in the international arena is ever increasingly bleak, on the grounds that China continues to apply greater pressure to isolate Taiwan internationally. From 1990 to 2000, the KMT administration lost diplomatic relations with eleven countries. From 2000 to the present, the DPP administration also lost eight countries.

The Chinese government continues to state that “it places its hope on Taiwanese people.” We hope that the PRC government does sincerely heed to the will Taiwanese people, instead of paying lip service. Recent public opinion poll shows that China’s diplomatic suppression on Taiwan has not only worsen the cross-strait situation but also upset the Taiwanese people in general. Most people do not agree with China’s action, considering them as detrimental, and feel that China should be responsible for the negative developments of the current situation. Also, most people agree that China has cheated the Taiwanese people by playing the carrot and stick policy.

The long-term diplomatic suppression from China has already generated some ill-sentiments in Taiwan. If the South and Central American countries continue to break diplomatic ties with Taiwan in a domino-effect, the Taiwanese people would surely become even more anti-Chinese. As such, the Chinese government should re-evaluate the current situation or take full responsibility to the dire consequences in the ongoing development of cross-strait relations.

(Translated by Solomon Chang)

Another Diplomatic Crisis…

Taiwan is going through another diplomatic crisis right now. After Taiwan has re-established formal diplomatic ties with St Lucia last month, today Costa Rica's President Oscar Arias has announced that Costa Rica has broken diplomatic ties with Taiwan after 60 years and formed relations at ambassadorial level with China as of June 1. It has been rumored for a long time that Costa Rica has got cozy with the PRC. Last month, we were also surprised when Costa Rica voted against Taiwan's bid for full membership of the WHO. Costa Rica's switch leaves Taiwan with just 24 allies in the international community, compared to the PRC's 170.

Ironically, at the press meeting, the Costa Rican president thanked Taiwan for its "solidarity and co-operation." Nevertheless, he also said that he had made the decision based upon all the Costa Ricans' interests, since Costa Rica views China as the most powerful emerging economy in the world and aims to strengthen the bilateral commercial ties for attracting more investments.

It is a warning that China has been actively seeking opportunities to form diplomatic ties with Latin American states during the last few years. According to analysts, Costa Rica's shift in allegiance to the PRC would probably prompt other Latin American nations like Panama and Nicaragua to follow.

In any case, we still need to give Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs our support. After all, the number of our "formal" international allies shouldn't be used as the only way to evaluate or examine the MOFA's efforts. In my view, expanding Taiwan's diplomatic space in a more flexible manner and promote various cooperations with the countries with which Taiwan does not have formal diplomatic relations would create more positive impacts on Taiwan's diplomatic work in the future.

Peace and Hope, as always...

An event titled “Walk for Health” was held on Saturday, 12th May, 2007. The massive crowd came out in support of Taiwan’s bid for membership of the WHO. It was a warm and sunny day, and with the participation from people of all different sorts, it was definitely a joyous and festive event. There were youngsters with bandanas and skateboards, little kids with their parents, and couples holding hands together, as everybody voiced their concerns and expectations in the most harmonious and pleasant fashion. The sight cast a very ironic contrast with the appalling attacks launched by the Health Minister of China, Gao Qiang during a debate about the membership issue of Taiwan in Geneva, half the globe away.