The combined effects of ROC foreign policy and cross-strait relations make this stage of ROC foreign relations extremely unusual. How does Chang, an old foreign-affairs hand, who studied international politics and entered the diplomatic corps nearly 30 years ago, and who bears the high expectations of the people, plan to steer the ROC diplomatic ship through these troubled times? What are the short-, mid- and long-term foreign policy objectives of the ROC? And how does this foreign-affairs warrior assess the different views about foreign policy now current in Taiwan?
Q: The hottest item in international news right now is probably the Hong Kong handover. With the Bahamas recently severing relations with the ROC, fears are mounting about the "Hong Kong handover effect." How do your see the current situation of ROC foreign relations? Will there really be a slew of nations severing ties?
A: The fact is that our diplomatic efforts have been hampered by pressure from mainland China for a long time. Whether you call it "hemming us in," or "trying to break us," or "putting us under pressure," it's hard to divide these actions into different eras.
But the problem of handling Hong Kong after the handover could put us under a lot of pressure, because Beijing can advocate their "one country, two systems" model for Hong Kong as a way to resolve the "Taiwan question." There will be some countries that may believe that this is a workable solution. In which case, it will of course put us under some pressure. Yet in reality we have already put great efforts into letting the people of the world know that this Hong Kong model is not suitable for the Republic of China, because we are very different from Hong Kong. Whether one speaks of historical background, the political environment, or national defense capabilities, there are huge differences.
Goals for the Year 2000
As for the suggestion that there will be a flood of nations breaking relations with the ROC after the handover, I think not. In fact, if we use the year 2000 as a target, I believe that in that year the number of nations with which we have relations will be an increase on today's number rather than a decrease. Of course, our current efforts to stabilize foreign relations are very important. But we also want to plow new ground and establish relations with other nations as well.
Basically, diplomatic wars are similar to military wars. The best defense is a good offense. We can't permit any compromise or backpedaling. After the Hong Kong handover, we will perhaps experience some diplomatic obstacles and attacks, but these shouldn't cause us to change our course.
Q: If we are more active in our foreign policy, we immediately have to consider the question of "cost." In fact, since we actively started to pursue the policy of "pragmatic foreign relations," mainland China has opposed us at every turn. As a result, people at home often wonder if we what we are really doing is engaging in "dollar diplomacy," and they raise doubts about whether such policies are worth what they cost in souring cross-strait relations.
A: In fact, this term "dollar diplomacy" is better suited to describe the case of the PRC. We don't fit the bill. The amount our Foreign Ministry can spend is limited. Last year it was only NT$15 billion. For the next fiscal year, it will increase a bit to over NT$16 billion. There are great limits to how much this can do in terms of providing foreign aid.
Take the example of the Bahamas, the nation that recently severed relations with us. Beginning last year mainland China was actively trying to get the Bahamas to switch recognition. According to our understanding, while we were announcing the severing of ties, mainland China was investing through a third party nearly US$200 million in the Bahamas to build a port and two hotels. This was clearly a major motivation for them, and it's a cost that we just couldn't bear. The foreign-assistance money that we provide is classed as "international affairs activity expenses," and it only amounts to NT$3 billion. Then there's some money under another heading that we can use, but that's not even NT$1 billion. We have many countries that want to maintain relations with us, and there are also several nations to which we provide agricultural missions, medical services, technological cooperation and some loans. And so we've got to be very careful about how we spend our money, and only offer what's feasible.
Trying to conduct foreign affairs with no bargaining chips, no economic resources and no ability to provide aid would be extremely difficult. But we don't waste a cent. If the aid requirements are too high, or the domestic political situation is too unstable, then we won't consider establishing relations.
Early this year we meet with representatives from Sierra Leone in another African nation, and we spoke about establishing relations. But after we made an assessment, we came to the conclusion that its government was not stable enough, and so we didn't agree to establishing relations. Of course, if you want to wait until African nations have governments as stable and political systems as developed as those of Western European nations, then you virtually wouldn't be able to have relations with any nation in the continent. Still, nations must meet certain reasonable criteria before you can start to talk about establishing diplomatic relations. Take, for instance, Sao Tome and Principe, with which we have recently established relations. Mainland China has done what it can to get the nation to reverse its decision. It's not that the domestic political situation isn't stable; it's just that the fact that there are several political factions and the prime minister and president belong to different parties makes the old mainland Chinese ambassador, who is still there, think that he might be able to get the nation to reverse its decision. We laid the ground work for four years, making a careful assessment of the situation there. Only after obtaining the agreement of both the president and the premier, did the minister of foreign affairs sign the recognition treaty. Hence, in regard to developing foreign relations, we follow a detailed assessment process.
You just mentioned this question of "cost." If the cost is too great, we can't bear it and won't pay it. Mainland China has a different system than ours. The people and the legislature provide no oversight there, and hence I think it's the mainland that can play the game of dollar diplomacy. We don't have that capability.
Q: There is a special characteristic of conducting diplomacy in the ROC, missing even in other divided nations such as the former East and West Germany, and North and South Korea, namely that cross-strait relations and foreign relations always seem to affect each other here. This being the case, would it be best to try to improve cross-strait relations as a way to reach a breakthrough in foreign affairs? For instance, mainland China has proposed "one country, two systems," and you not long ago proposed "a divided nation ruled by two governments." If on this point, the ROC and PRC were able to reach agreement, that right now the one nation of China was split between two governments on either side of the Taiwan Strait, would this create more room to maneuver in foreign affairs?
A: Of course, that would be an ideal scenario. But mainland China would agree to negotiate with us about foreign affairs in a discussion of cross-strait relations only if we were already in a powerful diplomatic position. If you don't start from a position of power, the mainland is not going to yield any ground. Hence, it is my belief that we must be highly independent as regards foreign affairs and not let our diplomatic efforts be held hostage to cross-strait relations. Of course, for the overall development of the nation, both foreign relations and cross-strait relations are very important.
We hope that cross-strait relations will be peaceful and stable, and will lead to reunification. Through foreign relations, we hope to create a favorable environment that will allow the two sides to come to the table as equals and talk about how to carry out reunification in the future. But right now we shouldn't link these two so that we can make gains in one only by suffering losses in the other. Instead, we should push to advance on both fronts.
We also hope that the mainland can look at our foreign-affairs efforts more clearly and not make the mistake of thinking that we are pursuing independence for Taiwan. In fact, the mainland ought to have an even clearer understanding that if in establishing foreign relations we continue to suffer from their pressure and if the Republic of China is increasingly isolated and its foreign relations sabotaged, then this would only promote Taiwanese independence, because such moves play into the hands of the Taiwanese independence movement. If the Republic of China has no way to exist, and is constantly recoiling from the world, then some people here will find it convenient to advocate Taiwan independence.
Therefore, the mainland really ought to consider things clearly. If the Republic of China has some international standing, then of course the possibility of independence, of a Republic of Taiwan, will diminish greatly. In our foreign relations we want to continue to grow and establish a secure position for ourselves, so that our international status has secure recognition. Only then will we be able to sit down and negotiate with the mainland as equals. Otherwise, the existence of cross-straits relations won't have any special meaning.
Q: Many of those who advocate Taiwanese independence say that the reason we can't go far diplomatically is our name the Republic of China, and therefore argue that we should just go ahead and call ourselves the Republic of Taiwan. What do you think about this proposal?
A: Before I answer, I first want to comment about something you just mentioned-that the Republic of China is continually under pressure in international society and that therefore some people believe that we should use the name the Republic of Taiwan. Now who is it that is applying the pressure internationally? Is it not mainland China? Other countries aren't be putting pressure on the ROC. The reason why other countries don't recognize us is clearly because of the "mainland China factor." As soon as the mainland stops applying pressure, we will immediately be able to establish relations with those nations and join the UN. Which is to say that the mainland is in fact helping the cause of Taiwan independence.
The Republic of Taiwan myth
The truth is that as things currently stand, if Taiwan were to declare independence, the mainland would, in accordance with its basic policies, intervene with force, destabilizing the seas around Taiwan. But let's return to the issue of international recognition. What would actually happen in the realm of international politics, if you declared yourself independent today. The major countries will not recognize you because most of them now have relations with mainland China, and a precondition of having relations with mainland China is holding to the policy that "there is only one China and Taiwan is part of it." Their standpoint is very clear right now. If you tried to disregard this position, the mainland wouldn't stand for it. Let's first not talk about a superpower like the United States, but just consider it from the angle of a typical country-Thailand, for instance. Thailand and the mainland have diplomatic relations, and they were established with an understanding of the mainland's policy about Taiwan. If Thailand were to recognize the Republic of Taiwan, then it would violate this policy, and the mainland would definitely sever relations with Thailand. Just think about it. In such circumstances would Thailand recognize the Republic of Taiwan? No way. If Thailand could recognize the Republic of Taiwan without having the mainland sever relations, then it would recognize the Republic of China right now. There is nothing that would change from their point of view. Thus, from practical considerations about the policies of foreign governments, there is nothing to be gained by establishing a Republic of Taiwan.
Q: Based on what you just said, is it possible to draw an explanatory diagram? At one extreme is a united China; next is separate governments, which is the current situation in China; and at the other extreme is an independent Taiwan. All of our current foreign affairs efforts are aimed at moving toward the long-term goal of one China by getting in a position to meet and discuss conditions with the mainland as an equal. But if the mainland applies pressure and pushes us, in other words pushes us toward the other extreme, then we can't help but consider the possibilities and costs of independence.
A: Yes, this is very much the situation. When you push the Republic of China, you push us toward the other extreme. This is what we don't want to see happen, but these are indeed the results of such actions. Hence, you can't say that the ROC's actions internationally are aimed at establishing an independent Taiwan. The fact is that when the PRC puts pressure on the ROC it is truly creating support for the Taiwan independence movement. In other words, Beijing is jeopardizing its own objectives by giving aid to the Taiwan independence movement, and its actions are especially dangerous because it doesn't even realize what it's doing.
Right to representation vs. sovereignty
Q: In regard to that concept of "equal recognition" that you just touched upon. It is generally agreed that on the United Nations front we have been working hard for many years, and yet have been unable to make a breakthrough. The idea of sovereignty seems to be the sticking point. You not long ago went to the European Parliament, and made a very clear explanation about this issue. Could you briefly describe the main points of your speech?
A: For a long time we were unable to advance in our relations with Europe, stuck at the level of having trade and financial relations only. Now Europe is in an era of integration. As early as 1951 there was the European Coal and Steel Community, which was followed by the European Atomic Energy Community and then the European Common Market, which later integrated to become today's European Community. These developments led step by step to European Union. Their goal is to bring about a federal Europe, which would have a similar structure to that of the United States. This of course will take time.
Since Europe is integrating, it is appropriate to approach it as a whole. Hence, in regard to the European Union and the European Parliament, we have been working hard at building ties. You may remember that after I returned from my trip to Africa last year, I suddenly went out of view, and the media were scrambling to find me. Only later did they discover that I had gone to Belgium. And everyone was saying it was strange-what could he be doing in Belgium? The truth of the matter was that I went to Belgium to contact relevant people in the European Parliament. Do you remember that I once mentioned a "theory of cooking rice"? Which was to say that it would be better if the media weren't constantly lifting the lid off, because when they take the lid off of the pot, the rice won't fully cook. In actuality, at that time I was in the midst of cooking rice, and I couldn't say anything. But it wasn't until I had actually gone and made the speech that we made the announcement, because at that time the rice was already cooked and I could talk about it.
Reevaluating relations with Europe
The European Parliament is an important organization in the European Union; it's a body elected by the people. The people of each country elect their own representatives to the parliament, with 16 member countries in all. It has invited many important people from around the world to come and deliver speeches. I am the first foreign minister invited from Asia-and because I went as the Minister of Foreign Affairs from the Republic of China, the mainland was going all out to protest. My departure was done in secret primarily so as to keep a lid on it until it happened. It wasn't that we wanted to keep it a secret from the media, but rather that we didn't want the mainland to get wind of it. But when I arrived in Belgium, the Chinese Communists were already protesting. Fortunately the position of the European Parliament was quite firm, and I gave the speech as planned. The European Parliament has already invited Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, Yasser Arafat and other world figures to speak. When there is debate within the European parliament about some international issue, they invite someone to make a speech or deliver a report.
Originally they gave me an hour, but it ended up taking two hours. I spoke for half an hour, and then they asked questions for an hour and a half. It was the first time that I had ample time to thoroughly offer an analysis of our problems. For instance, I mentioned the question of the United Nations. Because the nations of Europe established relations with the PRC early on-most of them recognized the PRC as soon as it had political control of the mainland-all of them basically accepted the PRC position that our nation the ROC doesn't exist but is rather just a province of China. Setting out to expose this lie, I told them that we have always existed, moving from the mainland to Taiwan and bringing constitutional law with us. Although we left the United Nations in 1971, that does not mean that our nation was destroyed. The lack of UN recognition does not mean that we have ceased to exist. Our statehood still exists; it's just we've lost our rights of representation. We can't claim to represent the part of China that is mainland China.
Therefore, I stressed that the ROC has always been in existence, and that European nations ought to accept this reality. They also felt that this was reasonable. Furthermore, we have been continually pushing to develop democratic government. Western European nations are interested in and place great stress on democratization. Hence, during our discussions, I felt that they had a very positive impression. And the fact that the mainland was going all out in protest made me feel even more that making this speech was beneficial.
Q: In that case, what is the next step in relations with Europe?
A: We hope that the European Union will establish some sort of institutional office here. The European Parliament has already passed a bill to allow the European Commission (which is under the European Union) to establish some sort of permanent office in Taiwan, perhaps, at first, some sort of "bureau d'information." Then it can be gradually upgraded to the level of a delegation.
A full-fledged consulate-like representative office is of course the long-term goal. But making this first step is extremely important, and I hope that at the beginning of next year it will be possible to establish this information office.
Head of state vs. foreign minister
Q: You mentioned that the Chinese Communists were protesting that you were delivering a speech at the European Parliament. This reminded us that since we have been operating under a policy of "pragmatic foreign relations," the Chinese communists have been continually protesting. In particular, the mainland has been unremitting in its criticisms of our "head-of-state diplomacy," even willing to shoot missiles off in our direction. This has caused many people to doubt the value of head-of-state diplomacy, thinking that it makes a mess of cross-strait relations and is not in fact helping us. Some have suggested letting "diplomacy return to the diplomats." They believe that it would be better to go back to your quiet way of cooking rice. What do you think? Is there a conflict between diplomacy undertaken by the head of state and that undertaken by the foreign minister?
A: There is no conflict at all. Furthermore, I think that such a conclusion is missing the mark. I think that we've first got to ask ourselves: Are we a sovereign nation? If we are a sovereign nation, then establishing foreign relations is something a nation with sovereignty does, and various officials including the president, foreign minister and the heads of various departments can go abroad. But because we have been under pressure from mainland China, when our president goes abroad, it becomes something that seems very unusual. But just look at other nations and see how often their heads of state go abroad. By the very nature of his position, the president represents the country. It's very natural for the president to take trips abroad. There's nothing odd about it. Only the actions of Beijing are making it appear to be something unusual. Now, if we ourselves were to think that such trips were strange, then that would be strange.
If we have an opportunity to go abroad, then we'll take it. Neighbors ought to visit each other often. We ought to visit nations with which we have diplomatic relations; there's nothing the matter with that. The problem is all from the mainland applying pressure-saying that our head of state shouldn't engage in diplomacy. In which case, I'd like to ask the PRC, what kind of diplomacy should we pursue? What kind of space do you want to give us to engage in foreign relations? Can our foreign minister engage in diplomacy? They of course would say "no"! Wherever I go, they do all they can to protest!
The truth is that the Chinese communists wouldn't permit us to have any foreign relations, because they are of the opinion that we are merely a province of the PRC. If we are to accept their views about the acceptable bounds of diplomacy, then we would be diminishing ourselves, and we would truly become just a province.
And so, as I just emphasized, the way we conduct our foreign relations shouldn't be restricted by mainland China. Suppose we really ceased our diplomatic efforts. Would the mainland just let us off the hook? There's no chance of that. Even if everyone-from the president and foreign minister to the various department and office heads-only came to work for two days a week, and spent all their time eating, drinking and playing, getting no work done whatsoever and going nowhere, the mainland still wouldn't let us off the hook. The mainland would still keep trying to get nations to break relations with us. We've got to understand the true nature of the PRC.
Leaving space for our grandchildren
One newspaper similarly suggested that we cool our heels, but they made their suggestion in reference to our recent Han Kuang military exercises. I've said that diplomacy and national defense are very similar. I can't agree to saying that we will forsake acquiring new weapons and strengthening the military with newer equipment in exchange for having the mainland stop threatening us with their military. If we don't buy airplanes, submarines, Mirage 2000s and F-16s, if we don't want any of these things, then will the mainland say, "OK, we won't use our weapons against you"? No way. In other words, just as we have to be self-reliant militarily, we have to show the same resolve in foreign policy.
Foreign relations is a part of national security, and in foreign affairs the focus is on the future, not the present. We have to consider our children and grandchildren. They can't choose, because they are still small. We have a responsibility to give them a future in which the nation has space to move on the international stage.
Both foreign relations and cross-strait relations must be handled carefully. The truth is that our diplomatic efforts are not intended to irritate the mainland. The mainland is just too sensitive. It catches the flu with the slightest of exposure. If the mainland had a clear understanding of the reality of our existence, then maybe it wouldn't have such ill health! In foreign relations, you've got to do what you've got to do; you can't let someone else call the shots for you. That's a basic principle.
Q: Not long ago, the Bahamas broke relations with the ROC. In the wake of this startling news, there were scholars who suggested that if, like Hong Kong, we didn't have relations with any countries, we would become like Hong Kong, with its great economic vitality. And we would be able to rely on the institutions of capitalist international society to guarantee our security and wouldn't need to waste effort maintaining or establishing relations with other countries. They argued that we'd be better off that way. You are an expert on the theory and practice of foreign relations. Is there any logic to this kind of talk?
A: I think the upshot would be that we would become another Hong Kong. Hong Kong has no foreign relations and it survives, but its future is determined by Beijing. For us, foreign relations is very important. I'm not saying that we wouldn't survive without foreign relations. Without them, we'd survive, but it would be a hard existence, and we'd have no control over our future. And if we are to play an important part in the eventual reunification of China, foreign relations are an absolute necessity, and "pragmatic" relations are not a substitute for formal diplomatic ones.
If nobody recognized us. . .
Of course, if we didn't have any foreign relations, not only would our international status be like that of Hong Kong, it would also immediately cause a big problem: It would result in a ground swell of support for Taiwan independence. And it needn't reach the extreme of all nations breaking relations. If the number drops from 30 to 6, there will be many people advocating Taiwan independence, and mainland China will use its army against Taiwan.
So when we look at the problem we can't just look at one side of it. The real problems must be handled and solved, because international politics affects the domestic political situation. Foreign relations determines our standing in the international community. Hence, not only should the number of countries that recognize us not decline, the number must rise. In other words, our citizens who recognize the difficulties of our foreign-affairs situation need to actively put their all into supporting and encouraging our efforts, rather than passively denying the importance of foreign affairs, which is a very worrisome way of thinking.
Q: Between struggling to get more countries to formally recognize us and maintaining relations with nations that have "pragmatic" de facto relations with the ROC, which is the more important work? How do such efforts fit into our short-, mid- and long-term foreign policy?
A: The two are of course equally important. On the one hand, we want to strengthen our de facto relations with countries, and on the other hand we want to add to the number of countries that formally recognize us. And there's one more thing: We want to make a push to join international organizations. We want to take practical steps toward joining the UN, but that shouldn't be our priority. The focus should be on joining the secondary organizations that serve specific functions. For example, this year we have been trying to join the World Health Organization, but we haven't been successful yet. They once discussed our case in their assembly, but the PRC blocked our admittance. But we will continue to work hard to join this and other organizations.
In addition to actively struggling to get nations to recognize us, we also hope to strengthen the level of ties with those nations that have de facto relations with us. For instance, we hope that the status and treatment of representative offices can approach those of embassies. And we want to raise the level of contact. For instance, if presidents, vice presidents and other high officials meet, that's a way of raising de facto relations.
As for the scope and content of the relations, besides trade there is also the matter of supporting our national security. For countries that can't now promise to sell us military equipment, such as France and Holland, if relations could firm up so they could sell us submarines, warships and fighter planes, that would be extremely important. Hence, countries with which we lack formal relations are the focus of much of our diplomatic work. Both for trade and national security, they have very close ties with us. One hundred percent of the weapons we buy come from countries that don't formally recognize us, and about 94% of our trade is conducted with such countries. They certainly can't be overlooked.
Declaring sovereignty over Tiaoyutai
Q: In regard to ROC foreign relations, an important factor is the exercising of sovereignty. Working hard to establish diplomatic relations is also a way of building the integrity of the nation. But recently during the Tiaoyutai incident, why didn't we see a clear announcement of sovereignty?
A: Actually, in regard to Tiaoyutai, we are very clear about our position: We announce our sovereignty every year. Some people may say it's a useless gesture, but in terms of international law, making statements of sovereignty again and again makes a difference. The case of Tiaoyutai involves many nations and is a territorial dispute. In recent years virtually no countries have resolved matters of territorial disputes with arms. For instance, there is the dispute between Japan and the Soviet Union over the four northern islands. While it is true that Britain and Argentina went to war over the Falklands, the territorial dispute has still not been resolved. Hence we want to resolve this dispute reasonably. But we are very clear about insisting upon our sovereignty.
We appreciate the passion and patriotism of those who actually go to Tiaoyutai. But from the standpoint of government, should we send troops? Should the Ministry of Foreign Affairs coordinate with the Ministry of National Defense to take military action? Where would such actions lead? Most importantly, would they resolve the problem, and allow us to "take back Tiaoyutai"? This is an important question, and it deserves cool-headed and thorough consideration.
Q: Why did the Ministry of Foreign Affairs add the phrase "not cooperating with the Communist Chinese" to its statement of policy about Tiaoyutai?
A: The fact is that we said the same thing last year. Mainland China takes the same position on Taioyutai that we do, and there are some people in Hong Kong who feel very passionately about this issue, and thus suggest that we join forces with the mainland to take back the islands. But this would be impossible with the current situation of cross-strait relations, and we don't want to attempt anything that's not practical. Mainland China not only says that Tiaoyutai is theirs but also that Taiwan is theirs. In the blink of an eye, they'll turn from taking back Tiaoyutai to taking back Taiwan! Therefore, we don't advocate cooperating with the mainland to resolve the Tiaoyutai issue.
[Picture Caption]
In his office for greeting visitors, Foreign Minister John Chang has a huge map on the wall. It looks like there is unlimited room for diplomacy, but in fact Taiwan is held back by the cross-strait struggle for diplomatic position. What will Taiwan face after 1997?
The military maneuvers held in late June showed the fruits of military rebuilding in Taiwan. Routine annual maneuvers, their proximity to the Hong Kong handover made them a focus of media attention. (photo by Wu Tung-yue)
The terms "Head-of state diplomacy" and "academic diplomacy" are simultaneously concise and impressive sounding, but they obscure the work that goes on behind the scenes to make diplomatic advances. Here Chang leads a team visiting the ROC agricultural mission in Burkina Faso. (photo courtesy of CITC)
In front of the UN in New York there is a sculpture of a gun with a knot ted barrel, symbolizing the UN commitment to world peace. In 1971 the PRC took over the ROC's position in the UN. When will the Chinese of both sides of the strait be able to work together in the UN toward that body's goal? (photo by Ku Chin-tang)
The controversy over sovereignty over the Tiaoyutai Islands has raged fo r a quarter of a century, and clearly will not be resolved soon. The photo shows a Taiwan group, which claims ROC sovereignty over the islands, successfully putting ashore and raisin g the flag there, despite a blockade by Japanese patrol vessels. (photo by Tsai Hsiu-ying)
In front of the UN in New York there is a sculpture of a gun with a knot ted barrel, symbolizing the UN commitment to world peace. In 1971 the PRC took over the ROC's position in the UN. When will the Chinese of both sides of the strait be able to work together in the UN toward that body's goal? （photo by Ku Chin-tang）
The controversy over sovereignty over the Tiaoyutai Islands has raged fo r a quarter of a century, and clearly will not be resolved soon. The photo shows a Taiwan group, which claims ROC sovereignty over the islands, successfully putting ashore and raisin g the flag there, despite a blockade by Japanese patrol vessels. （photo by Tsai Hsiu-ying）
@List.jpg?w=522&h=410&mode=crop&format=webp&quality=80)
@List.jpg?w=522&h=410&mode=crop&format=webp&quality=80)