Since the ROC government first allowed "family visits" to the PRC back in November of 1987, cross-strait relations are now in their 11th year. Various factors have strongly influenced cross-strait relations, including the global situation in the wake of the Cold War, evolving domestic situations (economic, political, and social) and new leaders. Cross-strait relations are of great importance not only for the well-being of people on both sides, but for peace and stability in Asia, and indeed worldwide.
Dr. Chang King-yuh is chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) of the ROC Executive Yuan, the agency with primary responsibility for mainland policy. With relations between the two sides still uncertain after 10 years, what are Chang's views about the current situation? About the future? And about possible changes in the global situation?
Q: Would you first talk about some history? Cross-strait exchanges have been going on for ten years now. What changes have there been over the past decade? Can this period be divided into discrete stages? Who has been responsible for initiating the changes? Are developments proceeding in line with the ROC Guidelines for National Reunification?
A: Over the past 10 years, the two main axes of cross-strait relations have been discussion and exchanges. Let's talk about exchanges first. Over the last decade, there have been over 11 million visits by our citizens to mainland China, and there have been more than 100 million pieces of mail or telephone calls. There have been countless exchanges in academia, the arts, technology, sports, and national heritage. In terms of the economy, Taiwanese business people have invested about US$12 billion in the mainland; Taiwan is the second largest outside investor there, trailing only Hong Kong. Indirect trade has already surpassed US$120 billion. The intensive economic and cultural exchanges between the two sides have brought bilateral relations to a new stage.
Private exchanges between the two sides naturally run into various problems, so dialogue is obviously very important. Since the founding of the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) on our side and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) on theirs, there have been 17 rounds of substantive discussions between the two. The 1993 "Koo-Wang summit" established a systematic channel for communication between the two sides, and was an important achievement in the development of cross-strait relations. We have always advocated substituting dialogue for confrontation. A systematic channel for dialogue is the basis for realizing this goal.
Neither side can dictate to the other
Over these ten years cross-strait exchanges have basically followed the design laid out in the Guidelines for National Reunification. But the evolution of cross-strait relations cannot be determined unilaterally, so there is no issue of who initiates what, or who leads whom. For the future, I hope that in general the two sides find themselves in an era in which misunderstandings are resolved through communication, in which dialogue replaces confrontation, and in which there is cooperation to create mutual advantage.
Q: Most people still don't understand the Guidelines' near-, medium-, and long-term stages, and how the MAC reconciles concrete policy with the Guidelines. Could you explain a little how SEF-ARATS dialogue, the Guidelines, with MAC policy relate to each other?
A: The Guidelines were reviewed and approved by the National Reunification Council, set up by President Lee. They were finalized in February of 1991, and approved by the cabinet that March, becoming the guiding outline for mainland policy. You might say that these are the principles for our mainland policy, which are realized through policy and legislation.
The Guidelines lay out a process, with near-, medium-, and long-term stages. There is no timetable, and the stages depend on the actual progress in cross-strait relations. The first stage calls for exchanges based on mutual benefit; we are currently still in this stage of the process.
The second stage should be one of mutual trust and cooperation. This can be judged by a number of concrete indicators. First the two sides must eliminate mutual enmity. For our part, in 1991 we announced the end of the Period of Mobilization for Suppressing the Communist Rebellion. But thus far mainland China has refused to renounce the use of force, and still uses military maneuvers or missile tests to try to intimidate Taiwan. Another concrete indicator is whether each side denies the other's legitimacy. China has obviously been a divided country since 1949. Communist China must face this fact and acknowledge us. A third condition is that neither side try to keep the other out of international society. If these three prerequisites were satisfied, then we would be in the medium-term stage.
Finally would come, of course, the third phase. In this period, there would be a consensus between the two sides regarding systems and ways of life. This would be the era of discussions on reunification. The two sides would open negotiations, as equal political entities. This is the long-term goal of which the Guidelines speak.
No fixed timetable
Q: How do you see cross-strait relations at present? How can they be improved? When will the so-called "three links" [direct mail, direct shipping and flights, direct commerce] be established?
A: Right now the biggest problem in cross-strait relations is that the Chinese Communist authorities refuse to accept the fact that the two sides are in a state of divided government. They do not recognize that the Republic of China is a sovereign, independent state. Communist China insists on its "one country, two systems" policy toward Taiwan, treating Taiwan with a hegemonic attitude, seeing Taiwan as a local government under it, and seeing itself as the only legal government representing "China." Unless this attitude and policy changes, it will be difficult for there to be any great new development in cross-strait relations.
Looking to the future, the foundations of cross-strait relations should be "peace is to be treasured" and "harmony is of benefit to both sides." If both sides can hold to the principle of mutual benefit, and undertake more positive, benign interactions, naturally this would be helpful to the democratic reunification of China.
As for the "three links," these can only be talked about when national security is guaranteed and national dignity is upheld. When one side is continually worried and trying to "plot" against you, how can one talk about the three links, which involve issues of territorial waters and airspace?
Q: The National Reunification Council has just convened a plenary session. President Lee emphasized "guarding against haste and being patient, moving with sureness and foresight." This is basically the same line as in the past, and it seems unresponsive to hopes among some in the public, especially business people, who are demanding that the pace of cross-strait exchanges be speeded up. Why is this? Is there any direct connection with the MAC's analysis of the situation in mainland China?
A: Before talking about this issue it is necessary to first look at the larger environment in cross-strait relations. The mainland refuses to forswear the use of force, and periodically makes military threats against us. Economics and trade are affected by the larger situation. With the mainland continually trying to keep Taiwan down militarily, politically, and diplomatically, it is inevitable that economic and trade relations are affected. Our governance does not extend to mainland China, and currently discussions between the two sides are on hold, so how could the rights and interests of Taiwanese business people in mainland China be guaranteed?
Where caution should apply
We hope that mainland China will understand that the two sides can only have positive interactions when relations are harmonious. Now let's look at what the government means by "guarding against haste and being patient."
Right now mainland China takes 43% of all of Taiwan's overseas investment. There are tens of thousands of small and medium-sized firms from Taiwan operating in mainland China, and they do so without restraint. In fact, the ROC government restricts only three types of investment in mainland China. One is in high-tech industries. We want to keep research and development in Taiwan, so Taiwan will become a stronghold of high-tech industries. Second is in basic infrastructure, like electrical plants, railroads, highways, airports, and so on. These require huge outlays, and return on investment is very slow. If there are changes in cross-strait relations, there could be an incalculable impact.
The third kind of investment for which patience is required is that in projects exceeding US$50 million. Ordinarily only large corporations listed on the stock market have the capability to undertake such large projects. If there were to be problems, they would adversely affect the broad investing public. It is not merely the entrepreneur who is at risk, and the government naturally has the responsibility to protect the security of its citizens' property as well as the overall national interest.
If we unreservedly allowed any and all economic relations with mainland China, there would inevitably be great political risk. Thus the government keeps advocating patience and warning against haste in order, on the one hand, to remind entrepreneurs to carefully assess risk, and on the other, to actively keep everyone discussing and thinking about the various problems existing in cross-strait economic relations. We want to establish a more sound legal foundation and development framework so that long-term economic relations between the two sides can proceed with greater stability and more soundly.
Q: Trade is Taiwan's economic lifeline. The mainland market is huge. If we are limited by special factors pertaining to cross-strait relations and cannot compete against foreign firms for business opportunities, will this harm Taiwan's economic development? Are there any policies that can fully take into account the real benefits that the mainland offers while guarding against the mainland's united front strategy of manipulating our business people to pressure our own government into making political concessions?
A: The world's economic center of gravity is shifting to the Asia-Pacific region, and the economies of Southeast Asian nations are rapidly integrating. In light of these two trends, and considering that Taiwan and mainland China will soon enter the World Trade Organization, if we can swim with the tide and-subject to the principles of mutual benefit and mutual accommodation-strengthen economic and trade relations between Taiwan and mainland China, then Chinese people will definitely play a leading role on the world economic stage in the next century.
Overconcentration of investment
Nevertheless, the trend of enormous investment in mainland China by Taiwanese business people in recent years will affect efforts to achieve comprehensive economic development in Taiwan, and it will increase the risks for Taiwan's economic development. By the end of September of 1997, Taiwanese business people had already invested US$12 billion in mainland China. According to mainland statistics the figure has reached as much as US$36.5 billion. In the last five years, mainland China has taken 43% of our total foreign investment. Our outgoing investment is overconcentrated in mainland China. This is why in policy terms we warn against haste and urge caution. We hope that, as long as cross-strait relations are still uncertain, business people will not act rashly. We hope that before investing in mainland China they will make detailed risk analyses and diversify markets as much as possible, to avoid excessive dependence on the mainland.
At the same time, the government is prudently adjusting economic policy toward mainland China. It has authorized the opening of the "offshore shipping center." If the two sides interact positively on this, we will go a step further and plan and set up a "special economic operations zone," as a trial point for promoting direct economic links.
Q: Besides economics, the public is most concerned about cultural exchanges. One example is the recent controversy over recognizing degrees from mainland universities. What is the MAC's position? What are the political considerations involved?
A: Last December 12 the Ministry of Education made public its methods for reviewing and recognizing educational qualifications from mainland China. It also announced that it was recognizing 73 institutions of higher learning in mainland China. These provisions were first studied with an eye to the problem of the academic qualifications of people from mainland China who come to live permanently in Taiwan. The MOE began studying this back in 1992, and has spent five years and held numerous conferences, and their proposal was approved by the MAC.
After the list of 73 institutions was released, there was some controversy. Legislators or members of the public raised questions touching on issues of education, ideology, national security, and so on. Actually, concern should mainly be focused on the substantial provisions for implementation. The Executive Yuan has assigned the MAC and the MOE to study possible relevant follow-up rules and methods. The principle of recognizing mainland degrees has not changed, and the position of the MAC on this question has never changed.
Q: Since President Lee went to the US in June of 1995, mainland China has boycotted cross-strait discussions for over two years. Are the SEF and ARATS [technically non-governmental bodies] capable of breaking through the impasse and resuming high-level talks? Currently some scholars, including Shen Chun-shan and Byron Weng, are suggesting that the two governments form an official "cross-strait liaison committee" as an alternative communication channel during the transitional phase. Do you think such an idea is workable? Why or why not?
The issue of official talks
A: As for restoring talks, we believe that the most natural and practicable thing would be for talks to pick up from where they were broken off. Right now the SEF and ARATS are the two bodies that can serve as, and are in fact authorized to be, communication channels. Mainland China has no intention of scrapping this channel. The SEF can, within the scope of powers delegated by the government, undertake negotiations with relevant official agencies in mainland China, so it is by no means a mere civic or private organization. This existing channel is very important, and its functions should be fully exploited.
Establishing official channels of communication in which the two sides have equal status is a goal of the second, medium-term stage of the Guidelines for National Reunification. The prerequisite is that there be mutual trust between the two sides. Right now Communist China's attitude toward us is characterized by animosity and actions designed to keep us down. Obviously the time has not come for official communication.
Q: When mainland China reclaimed Hong Kong in 1997, many people were concerned that this would create nationalist expectations and pressures in Beijing on the question of "recovering lost national territory" [i.e. Taiwan]. What is your view? Has Hong Kong had any impact on international attitudes toward cross-strait relations?
A: Some people may have speculated that after Communist China recovered Hong Kong in 1997 and Macao in 1999, it would have a timetable for Taiwan. But in regard to this question, the international community wants the cross-strait problem to be resolved peacefully. Though most countries accept the "one China" principle, and recognize the mainland regime as its representative, Taiwan's democratic development and economic efforts have drawn great international attention and affirmation. In particular, Taiwan's stability during the recent financial turmoil in Southeast Asia is evidence that Taiwan plays a critical role in ensuring the economic prosperity and regional security of East Asia.
No "Taiwan problem"
At this point I want to remind people that there is no "Taiwan problem." Taiwan has not created any problem for the international community. Both sides of the Taiwan Strait have the responsibility to squarely face and resolve cross-strait problems. The core of the cross-strait controversy is about systems. We want to have "one country, one good system," not "one country, two systems." We hope for a China that has freedom, democracy, and a fair distribution of wealth. We do not want the inherently contradictory situation of one side declaring that "one country, two systems" is sound policy while also saying that the "four cardinal principles" [including the rule of the communist party and the existence of the communist system] must prevail.
As far as Taiwan is concerned, nowadays all policy must have public support. Now what is the public's view of mainland China's idea of using "one country, two systems" to resolve the cross-strait problem? Over the last seven years we have done nine public opinion polls. We have discovered that the largest percentage of people in any one poll who approved of using this approach to solve the cross-strait problem was 9.1%. The smallest number of people who rejected it was 68.5%.
Thus, from public opinion alone it is clear that Taiwan cannot accept "one country, two systems." Remember that Taiwan is under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China; it is an area in which freedom and democracy have been put in place. The ROC has its own judicial system, autonomous foreign relations, and national defense capability. In these ways it differs completely from Hong Kong, and the two should not even be considered in the same breath.
As for Hong Kong and the "one country, two systems" policy of mainland China there, we hope that Communist China can respect its promises that "Hong Kong will be governed by Hong Kong people, will have a high degree of autonomy, and its system will remain unchanged for 50 years." However, it will be some time before we can know whether Hong Kong can realize the people's democratic ideals and maintain Hong Kong's prosperity within the framework of "one country, two systems." This is a question that Hong Kong, Taipei, and the whole world are watching closely.
Q: The US has always had a certain influence on cross-strait relations. What role do you think the US should play in cross-strait relations?
The American angle
A: The two sides have been separated for well over 40 years, and there are vast differences in ideology, lifestyle, and in economic, political, and social systems. We have been engaging in exchanges for the last ten years precisely in the hope that we can reduce this gap, and promote improvement in the system and way of life in mainland China. Recently the US has been establishing a constructive strategic partnership with Communist China. The US goal is also to affect the mainland system and way of life, in the hope that mainland China will develop in the direction of freedom, democracy, and openness. We share the same goals and ideals, hoping that we can have a positive impact in encouraging systemic reform in mainland China.
Aside from this, our mainland policy has always emphasized that "peace is to be cherished." The US government has also often reiterated that it hopes cross-strait problems will be resolved using peaceful methods. Rational and positive bilateral relationships along all three axes-relations between us and the US, between mainland China and the US, and cross-strait relations-will be helpful to moderating the situation around Taiwan, and to the peace, stability, and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region. In the future, this will stimulate reform and openness and the development of human rights and democracy in mainland China. I would be very happy to see this.
Q: In terms of the international space required for the survival of our country, Communist China has been exerting every effort to isolate us, even sacrificing cross-strait relations. In terms of policy, how can the MAC convince mainland China that there is no need for the two sides to compete internationally, that there could be a win-win situation instead?
A: For a long time now, our government has been plainly telling the Communist Chinese authorities that our final goal is a free, democratic, and prosperous reunified China. But before reunification, the ROC must continue to seek survival and development in international society. This is the basic right of survival of the people living in the Taiwan area. And this can create a model for the Chinese on both sides to pursue a better future way of life and system. There is no contradiction between seeking future reunification and participating in international society prior to reunification. Before reunification, both East and West Germany enjoyed international participation, and it meant that the two were on a similar footing, making it that much easier to reach consensus. And the international scope was of even more benefit to post-reunification Germany.
We have always believed that the two sides share a common direction on the issue of national reunification, and are pushing in this same direction. Thus, the two sides should approach pre-reunification problems with methods and concepts based on reason, peace, and equality. If the two sides can peacefully coexist in international society, and support each other, this will necessarily be very helpful to future reunification. It will also clearly demonstrate the strength of the Chinese people as well as their responsibility in accepting their duties in international society.
p.114
Dr. Chang King-yuh was formerly head of the Institute of International Relations, one of Taiwan's most authoritative centers of studies of mainland China, so he is well-informed in terms of both theory and practical politics. (photo by Hsueh Chi-kuang)
p.117
To cope with the new situation after Hong Kong's reversion to Chinese rule, last May SEF vice-chairman Chang Liang-jen (right) met with Chao Shih-kuang, head of the Hong Kong shipping association, who was delegated to represent Hong Kong by the PRC's ARATS. This was the first contact between the SEF and ARATS since the PRC broke off discussions. Though the talks were fruitful, they did not lead, as some had optimistically hoped, to a thaw, and regular talks have still not resumed. (photo courtesy of the SEF)
p.118
There has lately been controversy over recognizing mainland Chinese academic degrees. The photo shows Xiamen University in Fujian, which, being geographically close to Taiwan, has attracted not a few Taiwan students. (photo by Diago Chiu)
p.121
Under PRC guarantees of "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong," life in Hong Kong-including horse racing-goes on much as before. But the international media are still closely watching to see what long-term changes there will be. (photo by Diago Chiu)
To cope with the new situation after Hong Kong's reversion to Chinese rule, last May SEF vice-chairman Chang Liang-jen (right) met with Chao Shih-kuang, head of the Hong Kong shipping association, who was delegated to represent Hong Kong by the PR C's ARATS. This was the first contact between the SEF and ARATS since the PRC broke off discussions. Though thetalks were fruitful, they did not lead, as some had optimistically hoped, to a thaw, and regular talks have still not resumed. (photo courtesy of the SEF)
There has lately been controversy over recognizing mainland Chinese academic degrees. The photo shows Xiamen University in Fujian, which, beinggeographically close to Taiwan, has attracted not a few Taiwan students. （photo by Diago Chiu）
Under PRC guarantees of "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong," life in Hong Kong--including horse racing-- goes onmuch as before. But the international media are still closely watchingto see what long-term changes there will be. （photo by Diago Chiu）
@List.jpg?w=522&h=410&mode=crop&format=webp&quality=80)
