Taiwan’s Destiny at Stake in the Coming Presidential Election
--The result will have a direct impact on the fundamental national interests of the United States and Japan

Jan. 10, 2004

Published in the February 2004 issue of Seiron, a Japanese journal of opinion

by Takayuki Munakata
Secretary General of the Asian Security Forum
Translated by Prof. Alexander Kengan Young

Lee Teng-hui’s bombshell declaration: “the Republic of China no longer exists”

On September 6, 2003, 150,000 demonstrators, organized by “the Alliance to Campaign for Rectifying the Name of Taiwan,” led by former President Lee Teng-hui as the Grand Marshall, filled the open space in front of the Office of the President in the mid-summer sun-baked city of Taipei . Lee Teng-hui, who walked with his family members at the head of the unprecedented large demonstration, climbed the platform and delivered a fervent speech, declaring that “the Republic of China no longer exists! The only thing that remains is its title. The country’s name should be changed to Taiwan.” On August 20, two weeks before the rally, former President Lee said, “For twelve years I was indeed the president of the Republic of China (ROC). I looked around to see where the ROC existed, but couldn’t find it anywhere.” He issued his bombshell declaration anew in front of the huge masses on September 6.

The ground for the assertion that “the ROC no longer exists” is as follows:
1. According to the ROC constitution, the ROC territory covers the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Mongolia, but the ROC is nowhere to be found on the Chinese mainland. 2. Taiwan, which the Ch’ing dynasty ceded to Japan in 1895, was not a part of the territory of the ROC , founded in 1912. 3. After Japan’s defeat, Taiwan was occupied by the armed forces of the ROC, but it was by an order of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, similar to the occupation of Japan by the United States armed forces. Taiwan did not become a ROC territory. While Japan, by the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951, renounced its territorial claim to Taiwan, the issue of Taiwan’s jurisdiction was left undetermined.

It is apparent that since losing the continent of China after its defeat by the Chinese Communist Party in the civil war in 1949, the ROC possesses no territory recognized by international law. By a decision of the United Nations General Assembly in 1971, the ROC, a permanent member of the Security Council, lost even its ordinary UN membership, allowing the People’s Republic of China to join the UN as a permanent member of the Security Council. But because the UN Charter has not been amended, the name of the permanent member of the Security Council remains the ROC and not the PRC. While the ROC’s name remains in the UN Charter, inasmuch as the PRC has de facto replaced it, the country name, ROC, is useless in the international community. No country will probably be opposed if China demands amending the UN Charter, changing the ROC to the PRC. China, however, has so far taken no such action, because the status quo is more beneficial in maintaining the impression that “The ROC has been succeeded by the PRC, and that the ROC territory is now the PRC territory.”

That Taiwan’s legal status remains undetermined is the official position of the U.S., Britain and Japan and is accepted by most international law scholars. Since the principle of people’s right of self-determination has been established as international law by the UN Charter, the International Human Rights Covenants and others, only the residents of Taiwan have the right of determining Taiwan’s future status. Thus the residents of Taiwan possess the right of enacting the constitution of Taiwan and of establishing the state of Taiwan. That Lee Teng-hui, the ROC president for twelve years, has now publicly affirmed the theory, which has been the persistent view of the Taiwan independence movement for the last forty years – its significance is extremely important and its shock immeasurable.

While the ultimate objective of "Rectifying the Name of Taiwan" movement is the enactment of a Taiwan constitution, the abrogation of the ROC constitution and the establishment of the state of Taiwan in place of the ROC, former President Lee, at a conference with Japanese reporters on September 17, 2003, stated his desire to achieve the objective between 2008 and 2010. Following Lee’s statement, President Chen Shui-bian on September 28, the 17th anniversary of the establishment of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the ruling party, stated his desire to enact a new constitution in 2006, the 20th anniversary of the DPP, giving the following reasons:

During the Lee Teng-hui era, the ROC constitution underwent six amendments, realizing Taiwan’s democratization, first through a comprehensive electoral reform of the Legislature (until 1991 the Legislature saw no reelection and was dominated by legislators, who were originally elected in China and moved to Taiwan in 1949 with Chiang Kai-shek), and then through a direct election of the President by the people. It is unreasonable for the ROC constitution, enacted in China, to be applied to Taiwan. The six constitutional amendments were merely patch up measures to meet various problems. Establishing a system for Taiwan, a sovereign independent state, requires the enactment of a new constitution for Taiwan. Chen wishes to draft a constitution in three years and adopt it by a referendum in 2008.

Once the Taiwan constitution is enacted and the state of Taiwan is born, China’s “one China theory,” claiming “Taiwan is China’s domestic problem” will lose its theoretical ground. China’s military threat and use of force will then be severely impeached as aggressive actions which are strictly forbidden by international law. That’s why China is menacing the people of Taiwan, and in an attempt to stop the enactment of a Taiwan constitution, is declaring that “a Taiwan constitution will lead to war.” The unification faction in Taiwan, towing the China line, is thus opposed to the enactment of a new Taiwan constitution and is attempting to patch things up for the moment by amending the ROC constitution.

The coming decisive battle between the independent faction and the unification faction for Taiwan’s future

No one probably foresaw former President Lee’s declaration that “the ROC no longer exists!” It must have been caused by his sense of crisis about the coming presidential election of March 20, the result of which has the potential of endangering the establishment of the state of Taiwan, and forcing Taiwan to become the second Hong Kong. Such eventuality will not only cause Taiwan to lose freedom and democracy, but change the balance of power of East Asia, with a potential of seriously damaging the peace and security of the Asia Pacific region.

The coming presidential election, unlike those in the past, is fast turning into a decisive battle between the independence faction and the unification faction for Taiwan’s future. Taiwan’s four major political parties, divided into the independence faction, called the green camp, and the unification faction, called the blue camp, are engaged in a furious fight before the decisive battle. The green camp consists of the ruling party, the Democratic Progressive Party (the DPP), and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU). The blue camp is composed of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which controlled Taiwan for 55 years until its loss of political power in the 2000 presidential election, and the People First Party (PFP).

The green camp aims at winning reelection by the current combination of President Chen Shui-bian and Vice President Lu Shiu-lien (Annette Lu), while the blue camp has nominated Lien Chan, the KMT chairman, as its presidential candidate, and James Soong, the PFP chairman, as its vice-presidential candidate.

In the last presidential election (March 2000), because James Soong, an influential KMT politician, split from the KMT and ran as an independent candidate, dividing the KMT votes, led to the election of Chen Shui-bian, capturing 39.30% of the votes. James Soong came in second with 36.84% of the votes and Lien Chan third with a 23.10% share. James Soong, born in China, possesses strong Chinese consciousness. The People First Party is a political party, organized by assembling those possessing strong Chinese consciousness with those born in China at the party core. While the forecast is for an easy victory by the blue camp in view of the pairing of Lien and Soong, with a combined 59.94% from the last election, in the coming election, it may not turn out that way.

Taiwan was under a marshal law for 38 years from 1949 to 1987, the longest in world history, during which the establishment of political parties was prohibited. The DPP is a reform political party that was established despite the marshal law and the prohibitions. Its party platform advocates “Taiwan independence,” but, because not a few people hesitated to support the DPP out of fear of China’s threat of “stopping Taiwan independence by the use of force,” the DPP has moderated its official “Taiwan independence” stance.

The KMT, during President Lee teng-hui’s era, promoted Taiwan’s democratization in cooperation with the DPP. Inasmuch as Taiwan independence in one sense means independence from a system of colonial rule by alien regimes, democratization meant advancing Taiwan’s independence. That is why the Chinese Communist Party has labeled President Lee Teng-hui, who achieved “a quiet revolution” (a peaceful change from an authoritarian system to democratic system) “the master criminal.” But, because the KMT, once Lien Chan became chairman, has been taken over by the unification faction, some KMT supporters Switched party affiliation to the DPP. On the other hand, the speedy independence advocates, dissatisfied with the DPP’s weakened independence stance, coalesced to establish the Taiwan Solidarity Union in August 2001, under former President Lee Teng-hui’s guidance, for pressuring and assisting the DPP. In the December 2001 Legislature election, the vote shares of the four political parties were respectively: 36.57% for the DPP, 31.28% for the KMT, 20.34% for the PFP, and 8.50% for the TSU. The blue camp’s share, if the 2.86% share of the China New Party, which advocated speedy unification with China, totaled 54.48%, shrinking the vote share between the two camps to 9.4%.

As the following shows, there exist basic differences in the fundamental ideologies and policies regarding “independence or unification.” The green camp recognizes the reality of Taiwan as a sovereign independent state, subject to no other country. As to Taiwan’s relationship with China, President Lee Teng-hui in 1999 (then) defined it as “a state to state relationship, at a minimum, a special state to state relationship;” while President Chen Shui-bian issued a “one shore, one country” theory (each a separate country). But regardless of Taiwan’s assertion that “it is a sovereign independent state,” it is apparent that, as long as the international society regards the ROC as having been succeeded by the PRC, the ROC cannot participate in the affairs of the international community. The DPP in its party platform thus stipulates the establishment of the Republic of Taiwan as follows:
“The advocacy to establish the Republic of Taiwan as an autonomous, independent sovereign state, based on the principle of people’s sovereignty and to enact a new constitution shall be determined by a referendum by all the residents of Taiwan.”

The blue camp’s fundamental idea is “there is one China and Taiwan is a part of China,” and its basic policy is the eventual unification with the People’s Republic of China. That is why the blue camp strongly advocates the preservation of the ROC constitution.

In the face of China’s fierce attack on the DPP’s independence policy and of the KMT’s criticism, in line with its effort to intimidate the public, that the DPP policy will invite China’s military attack, the DPP has steadily retreated to “a middle of the road line” under which the line between independence and unification has become blurred. The DPP has captured political power, but, without the support of the opposition parties which have more than half of the seats in the Legislature, it is unable to enact a single legislation and, having been once driven to the corner, President Chen has even resorted to paying lip service to the blue camp.

In the Taiwan White Paper, published in preparation for the 2000 presidential election, China threatened Taiwan, declaring that “force will be used in case of an indefinite delay in the peaceful resolution of the unification issue.” President Chen in a year end talk, however, called on China to “start with economic, trade and cultural integration of the two shores (China and Taiwan) in search of a new structure for political integration.” China, seeing through it as a lip service, however, made no good will response whatsoever. President Chen, therefore, in January 2002 went one step further, saying that “one could start with the integration of cultural and economic aspects of the two shores, and lead to the integration of political aspect.

It is China’s old trick to target the foe’s weakness. Declaring that “the indefinite period” in an indefinite delay in a peaceful solution of the unification issue “does not mean a long period,” Beijing presses Chen for an early talk on the unification issue. In step with Beijing, the blue camp advocates starting negotiations with Beijing by accepting “the one China principle,” demanded by China, and shouts a “two families under one roof called China” slogan. The blue camp has been spreading the propaganda that it is the best road for peaceful coexistence with China in view of China’s assertion that China will “recognize Taiwan’s status quo” if Taiwan agrees to unification as a matter of form. It should be obvious, however, that such Chinese promise is unreliable in view of Hong Kong’s example. China pledged to insure Hong Kong’s status quo for fifty years, but as soon as it unified it in 1997, it moved Chinese armed forces in and robbed Hong Kong’s freedom day by day. The blue camp speaks of peaceful coexistence, but once a 1.3 billion family and a 23 million family cohabit under one roof, it will be a matter of time before the 23 million minority is swallowed up by the 1.3 billion majority. As an unfortunate consequence of the Nationalist Party’s monopoly of Taiwan’s mass media, imposed during the totalitarian regime of Chiang Kai-shek and son, the blue camp still controls over 80% of the newspapers and television stations. Their dexterous propaganda is still exerting great influence upon the masses of Taiwan.

It was the green camp that has felt an acute sense of crisis at such situation. Former President Lee Teng-hui must have felt the same crisis. For a long time, it has been the radical independence group’s assertion that “the middle of the road line cannot win the coming presidential election. Those born in China and their descendants number only 13% of Taiwan’s population, and since the coming presidential election will be a battle between Taiwan and China, victory can be won if the masses are enlightened to realize that Taiwan’s independence and freedom will be at stake at the coming battle.”

On August 3, Huang Chu-wen, chairman of the Taiwan Solidarity Union, declared bluntly that “the central issue of the coming presidential election will be a choice between the Taiwanese road and the Chinese road, one in which the people must choose becoming the Taiwanese or the Chinese.” Then came former President Lee’s bombshell speech at “the Use Taiwan’s True Name rally” on August 23. Those events had important impact. One was the big rally of September 6 that attracted 150,000 marchers. Another was convincing the DPP leadership that “it can win the coming election with the Taiwanese road,” leading to President Chen’s September 28 declaration on enacting “a new constitution.”

The blue camp has responded with a severe criticism, saying “President Chen’s statement on enacting a new constitution is tantamount to issuing a time table for Taiwan independence. It is a dangerous policy that will invite China’s military attack and one that is a total departure from Chen’s past statements.” During his trip to the United States, Lien Chan stated, “the one China we speak of refers to the ROC, and the one China the continent speaks of refers to the PRC. It is important to resume the two shores’ dialogue on an equal footing, each maintaining its own interpretation of one China.” The DPP countered, saying “China has regarded Taiwan’s government as a local government of the PRC. How then is it possible for the ROC and the PRC to hold a dialogue on an equal footing?”

No doubt, the DPP’s position is a correct stance. China’s position has been “the ROC, having been succeeded by the PRC, is dead, Taiwan is a part of the PRC and therein remains a renegade local government that refuses to follow the central government.” Lien Chan’s assertion is equal to the suggestion that Taiwan accept China’s “one China theory.” China and the Taiwan independence faction share the view that the ROC is dead, but China needs the ROC constitution until Taiwan’s unification. While ordering the preservation of the ROC whose existence it denies, China, however, has consistently insisted on observing “the one China principle.” “The one China principle” itself, however, is nothing but a fiction built on two fictions, one claiming Taiwan as a part of the PRC and the other claiming the whole of China as a territory of the ROC. Once Taiwan enacts the Taiwan constitution, established the state of Taiwan, and abolished the ROC, “the one China theory” will become China’s unilateral claim. The theoretical ground for the unification of Taiwan by China will be lost.

On October 25, 2003 the DPP sponsored a massive “Let us enact a new constitution by a referendum” rally in Kaoshiung, Taiwan’s second largest metropolis. Over 180,000 participated in the huge march. President Chen greeted the rally with a message, saying “Taiwan is a sovereign independent state. Taiwan and China, each a separate state, are two separate states. The referendum right is an inalienable, fundamental right. Let us enact the Taiwan constitution by a referendum and make Taiwan a normal and great country.” The march became a de facto rally, commencing President Chen’s reelection campaign. The green camp’s plans include not only marches but lectures and symposiums in cities all over Taiwan and other activities, aimed at helping the masses realize that the coming presidential election involves a choice between the Taiwanese road and the Chinese road. It also plans to sponsor massive rallies and marches over Taiwan, totaling one million people next February 28, just before the election and on an anniversary of the February 28 Incident, which saw the Nationalist armed forces massacred more than 30,000 Taiwanese back in 1947.

The presidential election of 1996 was the first one in which the president was chosen by the direct voting of the people. Calling President Lee teng-hui “Taiwan independence movement’s master criminal,” China menaced the people of Taiwan by repeated military exercises and by firing missiles into Taiwan’s air space and coastal waters. On that occasion, even pro-Chinese President Clinton, under strong pressure of the U.S. Congress, had no choice but to dispatch two air carrier task forces to the adjacent seas of Taiwan. China’s intimidation had no impact, however. Candidate Lee Teng-hui scored a huge victory, capturing 54% of the votes; the DPP candidate, Peng Ming-ming, the longtime leader of the Taiwan independence movement, came in second, and the unification candidate third. During the 2000 presidential election, Prime Minister Zhu Rongji appeared on television with a menacing devillish look, and repeatedly threatened Taiwan, declaring that “a victory by the pro-independence faction will lead to war.” The blue camp had television stations repeat Zhu’s threats, inciting a crisis atmosphere, warning that Chen Shui-bian’s victory will lead to attack by China, but Chen won. China has started intimidating the people of Taiwan. In view of the two past failures, a bigger intimidation using more frightening means can be expected.

How the result of the presidential election will change Taiwan

For the Nationalist Party, which had a monopoly of political power for half a century, the last four -year life of being an opposition party must have been a bitter experience. Considering how the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan, which was in power for 38 years, could not bear being an opposition party for only one year, recaptured power by making the chairman of the Socialist Party, with whose political ideology and policy it had nothing in common, Prime Minister, one can understand the Nationalist Party’s feeling. The belief that it can recapture political power in the coming presidential election has enabled the KMT to remain patient. It is the same with the People First Party whose core members consist of those who left the KMT. In the last election, because of James Soong’s revolt against the KMT, Lien Chan suffered a crushing defeat and a bad loss of face. In the coming election, James Soong is content to be Lien Chan’s vice presidential candidate despite his scoring second in the last election, with a huge lead over Lien Chan. The ardent wish of recapturing power has enabled the two bitter dog-and-monkey rivals to combine forces. The KMT will have no possibility of recapturing power if it loses the March election. The bureaucrats, who have kept silent, because of fear of retaliation in case the KMT recaptured power, will probably abandon the KMT wholesale. The KMT, the richest political party in the world, will probably survive until the Legislature election of December 2004. But there is no way the KMT can win the Legislature election once it lost a chance of recapturing political power. The DPP and the TSU will probably score a big victory. Since the KMT became the world’s richest party by confiscating the properties Japan left in Taiwan after its defeat, those properties must be returned to the state. If the KMT became a minority party in the Legislature, it will be difficult for it to protect its assets. In such an eventuality, the KMT cannot escape breaking up in the air. The PFP may survive as a party representing the interests of those born in China, but it will mean choosing the fate of a permanent minority party. Those developments are my predictions if the DPP wins the coming presidential election. Taiwan’s politics will stabilize and democracy will take root. The Taiwan constitution will be enacted as President Chen has pledged and a state of Taiwan will be born.

The problem is what if the KMT-PFP combination wins the coming presidential election. It will mean the revival of a political power possessing the characteristics of the pre-democratization KMT. The KMT, which had a monopoly of political power for half a century, lost it, because of Taiwan’s democratization, and driven into near extinction. Preventing the future loss of power will become its categorical imperative if the KMT recaptured power. On this there is a complete unity of interests between the unification faction and China. For China to unify Taiwan, the continuing political control of Taiwan by the unification faction is necessary until unification is achieved. China and the unification faction will join forces – China for making Taiwan follow the Chinese road and the unification faction for safeguarding its political power. Lien Chan has already declared his intention of visiting China once he wins. An early signing of the following agreement is possible:
“Both acknowledge that there is one China, and that Taiwan is a part of China. Both will cooperate in achieving economic, cultural and political integration.” “The one China” theory is a reaffirmation of the ROC constitution. The unification regime will surely take advantage of the concept of economic, cultural and political integration inasmuch as even President Chen has once made a public utterance about it. Once such agreement is signed, there will be a large increase in people exchanges between China and Taiwan and even the possibility of military exchanges.

Increased people’s dissatisfaction will be unavoidable if the unification faction movement presses Taiwan to follow the Chinese line. As it will be impossible to stop the unification faction regime, possessing the old KMT characteristics, from hunting for interests and powers, people’s dissatisfaction will appear. During the Chiang government era, it was possible to suppress people’s dissatisfaction by terror politics using secret agencies. But borrowing China’s power will be the only method of suppressing the dissatisfaction of the people who have tasted freedom and democracy. Under the concept of “two families under one roof,” one can fully foresee a situation under which Chinese warships and air force enter and exit Taiwan’s harbors and airports, intimidating the people of Taiwan. Taiwanese freedom and democracy will suffer a gradual loss. For freedom and democracy to take root after only one attempt is in itself a miracle. It is an extremely difficult enterprise, which should be apparent even by a mere glance at the example of many countries that achieved independence from the various powers after the Second World War. In Taiwan’s case, with added heavy pressure from China, the safeguarding of freedom and democracy, can only be an exceedingly difficult venture.

China’s goal of unifying the world

Why is China so obsessed with the unification of Taiwan? It is because of its goal to unify the world. The world as defined by the Chinese meant the Chinese continent and the countries surrounding China. China’s unification of the world was accomplished when China succeeded in the direct control of the Chinese continent and in the subjugation of the neighboring countries into investiture and tributary states. Since current China, which continues its economic development and even enjoys being showered praises that “the 21st century is a Chinese century,” it is inevitable that leaders of the Chinese Communist Party entertain the goal of achieving the unification of the world. Like an inborn instinct, the leaders of China cannot hide their ambition of unifying the world.

In the Territorial Waters Law, proclaimed in February 1992, China declared the whole South China seas, surrounded by the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, China and Taiwan, as China’s territorial waters (by the Territorial Waters Law, Japan’s Senkaku Islands are defined as a territory of China). The Law is tantamount to expressing China’s intention of turning the countries around the South China seas into China’s dependent states. Following the enactment of the Law, China resorted to occupying the South China seas islands one by one by force or by strong pressures on the neighboring countries, but it cannot transform the South China seas into China’s inland sea without controlling Taiwan. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that China will attempt a military attack on Taiwan. Eighty seven per cent of the people of Taiwan stated, in response to opinion surveys, that “they would fight to defend Taiwan if attacked by China.” A military attack on Taiwan will require a minimum of several hundred thousand Chinese armed forces. It is not possible for China to prepare such a military force in the foreseeable future. Moreover, Chinese attack will lead to a conflict with the U.S. which is officially obligated to defend Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act. Once war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, trade with China and foreign direct investments in China will suffer sharp drops. A complete suspension of trade and investment, triggered by economic sanctions, is also possible. Such an eventuality will lead to an immediate collapse of the Chinese economy, which is sustained by advanced countries’ capital and technologies, and will pose a real danger to the survival of the Chinese Communist Party regime. Taiwan’s crisis, therefore, is not a military attack by China.

The U.S.’s single-minded focus, however, has been on opposing China’s use of force, repeating “the Taiwan problem should be solved by peaceful means” like chanting Buddhist prayers. Such action has fallen into China’s trap. China’s strengthening of its military power has its objective in unifying the world and in forcing Taiwan to maintain “the one China” theory and to accept the inevitability of accepting unification. In October 2003, China launched a man-carrying satellite “Divine Ship #5.” The feat, which cost an enormous amount of money and 42 years behind the Soviet Union and the U.S., may gain little scientific and technological benefits, but had an immense effect in impressing the neighboring countries on China’s goal of unifying the world.

The U.S.’s two big blunders in policy toward Taiwant

When it comes to Taiwan policy, the U.S. has committed, at least, two big blunders. The biggest blunder occurred at the United Nations General Assembly in the autumn of 1971, when resolutions for China’s admission into the UN and for expelling the Chiang government were adopted. Labeled “issue of the right of representing China,” it had to do with which government should occupy a permanent representative seat in the Security Council as the representative of China, and not an issue of the right of representing Taiwan. From the inception, the ability to keep the Chiang government, which ruled not one inch of the Chinese mainland, as a permanent member of the Security Council and to stop the government of China from joining the UN was the U.S. policy of “containing China,” a sequela of the U.S. which fought China in the Korean war and suffered heavy causalities. Such method could not work for ever. As the number of countries supporting China’s admission into the UN increased, the U.S. resorted to the method of stopping China’s admission by designating the issue of China’s representation as “an important question,” requiring the approval of a two thirds majority of the UN General Assembly.

But in July 1971, the U.S. announced a change in its China policy and President Nixon’s plan to visit China the following year, thus assuring the admission of China into the UN. The U.S. then announced its policy of admitting China into the UN as a permanent member of the Security Council but keeping the ROC in the world body as an ordinary member. If the Chiang government gave up its permanent member seat in the Security Council, the issue of China’s representation would have disappeared instantly and the ROC could have remained in the UN. At that time, the U.S., which had diplomatic relations with the ROC and was Taiwan’s defender by virtue of the U.S.-ROC Treaty (a security treaty), could have compelled Chiang Kai-shek by the following warning: “if the ROC does not voluntarily give up its permanent Security Council seat, which is expected to be snatched away anyway, the ROC will lose even its ordinary UN membership, and it will not be possible to maintain diplomatic relations with the U.S. and the U.S.-ROC security treaty.” Chiang would have had no choice but to accept the U.S. demand. Of course, the U.S. knew that, I thought.

Convinced that Japan should not just stand by, I sent a letter to Prime Minister Eisaku Sato who had close ties with the Chiang government. In the letter, which was published in the October issue of “The Taiwan Youth” monthly, I asked that Mr. Sato advise Chiang Kai-shek to give up the permanent Security Council seat. I cannot tell if the letter had any impact, but I learned later that Prime Minister Sato sent former Prime Minister Kish, his elder brother, as a special envoy to Taiwan.

As soon as Mr. Kishi advised that “the ROC decline the permanent Security Council seat and retain its UN membership as Taiwan’s representative, Chiang Kai-shek changed the color of his face, leading Kishi to say no more. Chiang Kai-shek must have responded the same way when the U.S. envoy met with him. No dictator could give a pledge, for which he must bear responsibility, to a foreign representative. The U.S. envoy reported Chiang’s refusal to the home government, mistaking Chiang’s response as his real intention. The U.S. government subsequently submitted a proposal to the UN General Assembly, designating the expulsion of the ROC from the UN as a matter of importance. The U.S. committed such a foolish act despite the lack of guarantee for passing such a proposal inasmuch as an important matter designation required the majority vote in the UN General Assembly. The U.S. proposal was rejected at the General Assembly on October 25 and the Albanian resolution, admitting China into the UN and expelling the Chiang government, was adopted.

If the U.S. had paid a little attention to the domestic situation of Taiwan, it could have found out that Chiang Kai-shek was thinking that giving up a Security Council permanent member seat was unavoidable. At a meeting of the Standing Committee of the KMT Central Committee and at a meeting of leaders of the Legislature, Chow Shu-kai, Chiang government’s foreign minister, on September 13, 1971 just before departing Taiwan for attending the UN General Assembly, stated the following: “the important thing is to remain in the UN General Assembly. Beijing might not come in if we remain in the General Assembly. It is important that we remain even in the event Beijing joined the UN.” The Lien Ho Pao, the influential KMT-controlled newspaper, declared in its editorial of September 15, “The UN is our extremely important asset and is a base worthy of strong defense. Once we hastily withdrew from it, we cannot find a second UN.” There was no way Chow Shu-kai could have issued such a statement nor could a Taiwanese paper run such an editorial in Taiwan against the decision of Chiang Kai-shek, the deified absolute dictator.

The U.S. should have exerted strong pressure on Chow Shu-kai to quit the permanent seat of the Security Council. If it did, Chiang Kai-shek could have made Chow Shu-kai assume the responsibility and Chow could have explained “it was unavoidable under strong U.S. pressure.” If that had happened, the PRC could have joined the US as a permanent member of the Security Council and the ROC could have remained in the UN as an ordinary member; the two could have been recognized by the world as two separate countries; and the Taiwan issue solved once for all. Some could still argue that the ROC could have been expelled from the UN by strong PRC pressure. But that would not have been possible because of a rule requiring a two third vote of the General Assembly to expel a UN member. No member has ever been expelled from the UN, not even criminal regimes that have committed mass murders of their own people or engaged in terrorist acts abroad.

Another blunder the U.S. committed was its response to President Lee Teng-hui’s statement that Taiwan’s relationship with China is “a state to state, at a minimum, a special state to state relationship,” issued in an interview with the Deutsche Welle, the German public broadcasting company on July 9, 1999. It was a statement, which President Lee waited for a golden opportunity to issue, before completing his term the following spring. As a preliminary step, President Lee began calling the ROC, “the ROC in Taiwan,” from the previous year, indicating his idea that the ROC equals Taiwan. In publicly calling Taiwan and China separate countries, President Lee must have embarked on the task of officially acknowledging that “the territorial sovereignty of the ROC does not cover the Chinese continent.” Once President Lee’s plan is realized, it will be strange for Taiwan, its ties cut off legally from China, to claim to be China (the ROC). The rapid Taiwanization of Taiwan would have followed. Perceiving Lee’s intention, China began criticizing Lee like a crazy wild beast, posturing to make an imminent attack on Taiwan. President Clinton put strong pressure on President Lee, urging him “not to incite China any further.” Failing to grasp its meaning, the U.S. crushed the great work which President Lee considered to be the last task crowning his 12 year service as President.

The reason for describing the past is the fervent wish that the U.S. does not repeat the same mistake prior to the coming presidential election at which Taiwan’s destiny is at stake. Any U.S. statement opposing President Chen Shui-bian’s proposal for a new constitution will benefit the unification faction.

The unification faction’s victory and, with it, the advancement of the Chinese road, will lead to the loss of the Southeast Asian countries’ ability to resist China’s pressure and result in the success of China’s ambition to unify the world. Once China’s world unification ambition is realized, an East Asian cold war between the U.S. and China will break out. No one can forecast the future of the U.S.-sought new world order, but there is no doubt it is in the fundamental national interests of the U.S. to prevent the emergence of a hegemonic power anywhere in the world capable of confronting the U.S. If China is allowed to dominate the South China seas, the sea lane to the Middle East, which is Japan’s life line, too, will fall into China’s orbit. Even in the past, when China unified the world, Japan was able to stand outside China’s control and maintain its independence, but that capability may be in jeopardy in the future. Japan and the U.S. ought to recognize the direct link between Taiwan’s coming presidential election and their own fundamental national interests.

A Postscript
(December 15, 2003)

The matter that I feared became a reality early. It is President Bush’s statement, made when he met with Wen Jiapao, the Chinese Prime Minister, in Washington on December 9, 2003, saying “The comments and actions made by leader of Taiwan indicate that he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally to change the status quo, which we oppose.” Mr. Bush’s statement delighted China and Taiwan’s unification faction, but was a big blow to President Chen Shui-bian. The possibility to pressure Taiwan to follow the Hong Kong model will be great if such statement is repeated hereafter and if the unification faction wins the presidential election. If Taiwan became the second Hong Kong, China will succeed in establishing its hegemony in Southeast Asia. It will incur incalculable damage not only on Taiwan, but on the fundamental national interests of the U.S., Japan and the Southeast Asian countries. The U.S. government does not seem to be aware of the danger. President Bush told Prime Minister Wen, “We are partners in diplomacy, in the fight against dangerous terrorism of the 21st century. I am grateful for China’s leadership in eliminating the North Korean nuclear threat.” But compared with the Taiwan problem, the North Korean matter is a small one. It is wrong to expect China’s cooperation to pin down North Korea. North Korea is one of the few remaining Communist dictatorial regimes and a neighbor of a Communist dictatorial government, China. China needs the continuing existence of the North Korean Communist dictatorial regime. The Kim Jung II regime is one that barely survives by oil and crops supplied by China, one that will collapse if China ever applies real pressure. China only pretends to be cooperating with the U.S. The current task for the U.S. is to support the DPP regime of Taiwan and to prevent the unification faction from winning the presidential election. President Bush ought to declare that “the people’s right of self-determination is a fundamental human right accorded every people. The future of Taiwan must be determined by the people of Taiwan.”