Q: Currently Taiwan aims to actively participate in the United Nations. What is the main objective? Besides making a contribution to the international community and raising the status of the Republic of China, some people argue that entry into the UN would internationalize the problem of relations between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, effectively guaranteeing security in the Taiwan Strait. Do you agree?

A: Why do we want to participate in the United Nations? The answer is in fact very simple--it is the importance of the UN itself. The UN was established in 1945. At that time, the Allied Powers, drawing on their experience in the Second World War, hoped to have an organization that could effectively maintain world peace and promote the welfare of mankind.

As one of the founder members of the United Nations Organization, the Re public of China has a proud history of participation in its activities. The photo shows a meeting of the UN Security Council in August 1974; on the right is R.O.C. Ambassador Chiang Ting-fu . （photo courtesy of Central News Agency）

Unfortunately, it was not possible to realize these two objectives after the founding of the UN. The main reason it could not maintain the peace was that the communist countries generated chaos and disorder. The Soviet Union had a veto in the Security Council, and it was not in the least interested in cooperating. It readily used its veto on any resolution that involved blocking invasions or maintaining peace. The Security Council was essentially crippled and couldn't do much of anything.

Seeing that the Security Council was not working, the resolution "Uniting For Peace" was passed. This empowered the United States to act on behalf of UN member nations and take steps to guard against the communization of Korea. This matter was accomplished, but it became impossible to repeat thereafter. This is because there were more and more UN members, and with more differences of opinion, it became difficult to achieve unanimity of action.

Because the UN did not function as it should have, we were not especially distressed when the ROC withdrew in 1971. Everyone said, What's the difference if we are in the UN or not? There are no advantages to being in, and it is necessary to pay for UN membership, so there is no loss in leaving.

But to talk about entering the UN today is a different matter. In the last three years the global situation has changed completely. In its first 45 years, the UN was virtually unable to play any role. All important issues were decided bilaterally by the two superpowers. However, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the US is the only superpower left. The US now believes that it cannot play the role of "global policeman" on its own, and must rely on the United Nations. Thus, the UN once again has importance. The most significant concrete example of this was the Gulf war. Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, and all the troops that went to its aid did so under the United Nations flag.

In quantitative terms, in the first 43 years after its establishment the UN undertook 13 peacekeeping missions. It has undertaken 13 more in the last five years alone. It has done as much in the last five years as it did in the first 43. Today, look at Somalia, or Bosnia, or the Middle East; if there is a problem or dispute anywhere in the world, the UN will come forward. Thus, the importance of the UN is increasing daily, which cannot be ignored.

The "Koo-Wang talks," held in Singapore in April of this year, were an important milestone in cross-strait exchanges. But there is still a long way to go on the road towards building a basis for mutual trust and benefit. （photo courtesy of Agence France Presse）

Fundamentally, if we can enter the UN, the greatest advantage is that we can formally become a member of the international community. We can immediately be accepted by all the organizations and institutions that are affiliated with or similar to the UN, and become a member of those. The range of UN affiliated institutions is immense, and every aspect of our daily lives has some connection to the UN.

For example, your publication is mailed abroad. This involves the Universal Postal Union (UPU). Recently a water shortage in Keelung has given rise to fears of the outbreak of epidemic disease. We could link up with the World Health Organization (WHO) on that. Then there are organizations such as the International Labor Organization, UNESCO, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Even charitable organizations like the Tzu-chi Buddhist group, which is now involved in relief work in Ethiopia, could participate in the United Nations High Commission for Refugees or UNICEF, if only we were in the UN.

Thus, if we want to be a true member of the international community, we must participate in the UN. If we participate in the UN, we can take part in its peripheral organizations. Only at that time can we become a constructive, contributing member of international society. This is the real objective.

Q: You just pointed out that the UN has had a large role in peacekeeping in the past few years. Are you suggesting that if, in the future, there is a conflict between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. the international community can act as overseer and mediator to guarantee the security of the area?

A: Security in the Taiwan Strait is fundamentally our own responsibility. The primary responsibility for national security always falls upon the individual nation to maintain sufficient defense capabilities. It is said, "Don't rely on the enemy's not coming; rely on yourself to be prepared if he does." Given the current level of military technology, if you rely on the UN forces to come and save you it will be too late. Look at Kuwait. The United Nations forces acted very quickly, retaking the country in only four or five days after the start of the ground war, but by then Kuwait was already scorched earth and its oil fields destroyed. So today in Taiwan we must construct our own defense net so that the enemy does not dare approach.

To speak plainly, we have handled the UN problem very thoroughly, but many citizens simply do not understand this. I often say that for a member of the government the top priority must be the security, stability, and prosperity of the 21 million compatriots here. If today the mainland were to actually move against us, our security, stability, and prosperity would suffer terrible blows. The military classics say that "soldiers are fierce and wars perilous." War would be bad for both sides. Thus we have done many things to avoid antagonizing our opposite number.

As far as participation in the UN is concerned, we know that among the 184 member nations, besides the PRC none of the member nations would say that, "We despise the Republic of China, and so we will not permit it to participate in the United Nations." Only Beijing is resolutely opposed. But Communist China has clearly stated that it will oppose any plan to create two Chinas, one China and one Taiwan, or an independent Taiwan. Thus in handling the UN situation we have repeatedly said that we have absolutely no desire to create two Chinas, one China and one Taiwan, or an independent Taiwan. We have emphasized that China must in the end be unified and that we are working toward national reunification.

We contend that today China is, unfortunately, divided, and under divided government. But one of the sides in this division, which is to say the PRC, has substantive participation in the UN, while the other does not have substantive participation, and this is unfair. We should be allowed to have substantive participation. It is like East and West Germany between 1973 and 1990. They had simultaneous and parallel participation in the UN, and in the end Germany was reunified. You can see that simultaneous participation was helpful to German reunification, and was not disadvantageous to reunification. We say these things not to direct them at third parties, but to speak directly to the Chinese Communists.

Q: Is this the "one country, two seats" idea advocated by many scholars?

A: It's not that either. Let's not use the two words "one country," because when you say "one China," in the minds of foreigners this is the PRC. Beijing has long said that "There is only one China, Taiwan is a part of China, and the People's Republic of China is the only legal government of China." We say, "There is only one China, Taiwan is a part of China, and the Republic of China is the only legal government of China." The first two statements are identical. The only difference is in the last statement, which is the problem of the PRC vs. the ROC.

Under this formulation, foreigners will always choose the PRC, and no one will choose the ROC, because the ROC is small, and that's all there is to it. Thus, we have formal diplomatic relations with only 29 nations. We have been forced to withdraw from all parts of the United Nations system. This is the result of posing these two formulations from the two sides head-to-head against one another.

Thus, after becoming the president of the Republic of China, President Lee Teng-hui stated at his inauguration that he hoped to focus on three major things during his tenure: constitutional reform, mainland policy, and pragmatic diplomacy.

The most important point in constitutional reform is the termination of the "Period of National Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion," because when we were still in the mobilization period, we had to uphold the three statements that "there is only one China, Taiwan is a part of China, and the Republic of China is the only legal government of China." That's because the "rebellion" to be "suppressed" was that caused by that so-called "rebellious clique," the Chinese Communists.

Now, the period of suppression of the rebellion is over. This means that the Chinese Communists are no longer defined as a rebellious clique. Therefore, we also established regulations for governing relations between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, affirming that a political entity exists in mainland China. We see Communist China as a political entity ruling mainland China. Similarly, we want it to recognize the Republic of China as a political entity ruling Taiwan, the Pescadores, Kinmen and Matsu.

This is as Premier Lien Chan has repeatedly stated: China is today in the unfortunate situation of a divided nation under divided rule, with different governments in control. If you come to the Foreign Minister of the Republic of China about some matter on the mainland, there's not a thing I can do. On the other hand, for matters in Taiwan, the Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu, what good is it to go to the Chinese Communists? They can't do anything about it. This is the objective reality, and every country recognizes this point. In the past, our claim that we are the only legal government of China simply denied this reality.

Now we take reality into account, but Communist China still does not talk about the actual situation, and simply reiterates those three statements, meaning: "If you want to talk about Chinese affairs, you can only come to me." But is it useful to go to them about matters that take place here? It's useless. So-called "pragmatic diplomacy" simply means: "Whatever we are, that is what we advocate."

On the Chinese Communist side, its theoretical foundation is traditional international law, which is the theory of recognition of a sovereign nation. This contends that there is no higher law except what the nation itself accepts, that sovereignty is indivisible, and that there is only a single sovereignty for each nation. Thus, Communist China is in a position to say to other nations: "You have all established formal diplomatic relations with us, which indicates that you all recognize us as the only legal government of China. Moreover, you accept our argument that there is only one China and Taiwan is part of China." Although China is divided now, the sovereignty of China cannot be divided into two, so Communist China continues to insist that it has sovereignty and we have no sovereignty. This is the statement that Communist China repeats, day in and day out, in the international community.

This traditional interpretation has been thus far respected by most nations, but we must strive to break through this type of international law. The theories of traditional international law related to the recognition of sovereignty and nations were set in the 18th and 19th centuries. At that time there were no divided nations, like the two Germanies, two Koreas, two Vietnams, and two Yemens (North and South), or cases like Egypt and Syria or Iraq and Jordan, which had at one point combined and then divided again. These are all post-World War Ⅱ events.

Take the two Germanies as an example. Germanic people are the most meticulous about law. While the two Germanies were divided, neither East Germany nor West Germany talked about sovereignty. The word they used was "Hoheitsge-walt," which means "supreme power to govern." It meant that the Democratic Republic of Germany had the supreme power to govern over the territory of East Germany while the Federal Republic of Germany had the supreme power to govern over the territory of West Germany. Sovereignty was essentially frozen, and neither of the two sides talked about sovereignty.

Similarly, the two Koreas also say they favor reunification, and the Korean peninsula should have only a single ultimate sovereignty. Then why do people establish formal relations with South Korea, and also have formal diplomatic ties with North Korea? This illuminates the fact that traditional international law and theories of national sovereignty and national recognition are outdated. We want to definitively affirm this point. We have also asked domestic international legal scholars to devote more attention to this point and to provide a new theoretical foundation.

Q: The two Germanies and the two Koreas were formally divided by international agreement after World War Ⅱ. Isn't there some difference from the situation between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait?

A: That's correct as far as it goes. But don't forget that Jordan and Iraq were combined as a result of their own agreement, and after a period of time divided by themselves without any international agreement. The division or merging of nations may, therefore, be decided by international agreement, but it can also be carried out at the volition of those involved. And all these facts confirm that the socalled insuperability and indivisibility of sovereignty are no longer persuasive in today's world.

So here I want to remind everyone that participation in the UN is a complex matter and a difficult process. There are many aspects we must address, both theoretical and practical. In terms of "practice," one task is to construct an international atmosphere that is favorable to us. We are working very hard on this. The second thing is that we hope everyone at home will be united and of one mind, and not pull out this topic and beat each other over the heads with it. There's no point to that. In any country, there should be unanimity in talking about external affairs, and no nation can be an exception. You can't have me tripping you up from behind when fighting a war against an outside party.

Q: You have adapted international law as a theoretical foundation for Taiwan to reenter the UN, and Taiwan participating in the United Nations has become a part of the diplomatic agenda. Furthermore, you have talked about practicalities, if only in terms of international efforts and domestic unity. Yet isn't the relationship between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait the key?

A: That's right. But first I must explain that if any country wishes to participate in the United Nations, it must be led by its Foreign Ministry. According to UN regulations, regardless of whether it be a member nation or an observer member. the foreign minister must come forward to sign, and no other officials will be acceptable.

But I don't deny that today there are many countries which, though they don't have formal diplomatic relations with us, have still maintained friendly relations, who tell us, "Although we really would like to help you, frankly, you must first come to some understanding with Beijing, and then it will be much easier." We are of course very clear on this point.

At the same time, we also know that we have our own mainland policy and national reunification program. The Guidelines for National Reunification clearly stipulate an action platform in three separate phases. Now we are still in phase one and only when we reach phase two will it be possible to undertake negotiations. So at present we cannot undertake negotiations.

Even though we can't talk at present, our position has been very clearly articulated on many occasions. That is, as we seek participation in the United Nations, we have no desire to create two Chinas, one China and one Taiwan, or Taiwan independence. Our objective in undertaking this matter is to seek the future reunification of China, and this cannot be misunderstood. So I think that for Beijing to rely on this point in writing refutations of our position is not a very intelligent approach. Our position is just too clear, and we simply haven't been doing the things they oppose.

Q: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been given responsibility for the matter of participating in the UN, and the Ministry has moved very quickly. But, on the other hand, cross-Strait policy is stagnant. It seems like this topic should involve many ministries coordinating with one another. Is there any inter-agency action platform for coordinating activities?

A: Although at present we hope that there will be some breakthrough in cross-Strait relations that will allow Beijing to help us out in this matter, frankly speaking, this is wishful thinking and is a bit naive. Under current conditions in Communist China, no indication whatsoever can be seen of good intentions toward us. If one makes an effort to more fully understand how Communist China is attacking us internationally, one wouldn't hold this illusion.

To date, it can be clearly seen that in cross-Strait relations the PRC only wants to absorb our economic strength. For the present, there is no possibility of their easing off a little politically, though I don't dare predict the future.

On the other point, of course the actions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are integrated. It is under the guidance of the cabinet decision-making committee. President Lee has personally chaired I- don't-know-how-many conferences. How could the Ministry of Foreign Affairs act alone in this area? Moreover, the ministry has not moved too quickly, and there is nothing that can quickly get us into the United Nations. This is a pluralistic society, and everyone has their own opinion, so we must not be guilty of listening only to the views of some people and forgetting the views of others.

Q: So in terms of entering the UN, is it the case that there may be no opportunity for Foreign Ministry policy to be completely complementary with the ROC's mainland policy.

A: You have to wait for the PRC to show friendly intent, and I'm afraid that might not be possible even if you wait until you're old and gray.

Q: Well, will the current method of the Foreign Ministry trying actively to participate in the United Nations cause a reversal in relations between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, as for example in the release of the Chinese Communist white paper, "The Taiwan Question and the Unification of China"?

A: Of course we will not fail to consider Beijing's attitude. This means that in undertaking this matter the government has, from start to finish, never been willing to adopt any position that Communist China resolutely opposes. From the start we could have said we are a different China, but we have never said this. If anyone does say this, we have strictly and rigorously stated that we advocate that China be reunified in the future. China was unified before 1949, and in the future, who knows what year, we hope it will be unified again.

Nothing that we have done has in the slightest been meant to directly offend Beijing or to antagonize them. Nothing. But how can we make them happy? As it says in their white paper, they want you to accept that you are a local government; can you accept that? If you are not willing to recognize this, you have to do something to prove your point. Right? In other words, is it true that if the Foreign Ministry had done nothing, Communist China would not have issued its white paper? It's not.

Q: After the white paper was released, didn't it have an impact on countries that don't dare to state their support for ROC participation in the UN?

A: The attention given to the Chinese Communist white paper originates in the attention it has received in Taiwan. It was only in the media of this place and Hong Kong, and in the Chinese language international media, that the complete text was printed. Foreign media only carried very small reports. But the matter of ROC participation in the UN has been reported in full-page stories in the foreign media.

Q: What concrete strategy does the Foreign Ministry have with regard to participation in the UN? For example, in terms of the priority for the name and method to be used in participating? Or in terms of a bottom line in making concessions?

A: We will not reveal any of the tactics for handling the UN case. This is especially the case for the final, minimum negotiating position; how could we reveal that? This is our strategy. No general would reveal his strategy before the battle.

Right now, the thing that distresses me most is that I have repeatedly asked that we absolutely not reveal our strategy and methods. But everywhere you look there are people writing articles on "the government advocates one-country two-seats," or "the government advocates parallel representation." These are things people write in the paper, and then what's written in the paper is taken as the government's position. In fact, why would I ever reveal these things? I can only say that the two ideas of "rollback" advocated by some people, which is to drive the Chinese Communists out of the UN so that we will once again represent China, or Taiwan independence and a completely new application to the United Nations, are both impossible.

As for the first impossibility, the votes just are not there. Of 184 member states, it will take 123 votes to overturn the original resolution and to drive the PRC out. Could we get that many votes? As for the latter, if you want to apply to the UN in the status of a new nation, it would be necessary to get past the Security Council, and it would be impossible to evade the PRC's veto. So today when we talk about participation, this means that any role in the United Nations would be fine. But as for how we can get to participate, I will not reveal that. I can only say that we are working arduously, and that the most important thing is to get votes.

Today, sadly, the major countries of the world all have formal diplomatic relations with Communist China. We have no other choice but to invest the time to "whittle away" at its monopoly. So everyone must have patience and be resolute. Today everyone talks about "fast food," but there is no "fast food United Nations." It's going to take a slow fire to cook this meal. But we will never relax in the least, and we hope that people will not be demoralized by small setbacks. Everyone must put their trust in the specialists--trust the government.

[Picture Caption]

p.80

Since President Lee introduced the principle of "pragmatic diplomacy," the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been striving by active and flexible strategies to expand the scope of the R.O.C.'s international activities and to establish R.O.C. participation in the UN. (photo by Hsueh Chi-kuang)

p.81

As one of the founder members of the United Nations Organization, the Re public of China has a proud history of participation in its activities. The photo shows a meeting of the UN Security Council in August 1974; on the right is R.O.C. Ambassador Chiang Ting-fu . (photo courtesy of Central News Agency)

p.82

The "Koo-Wang talks," held in Singapore in April of this year, were an important milestone in cross-strait exchanges. But there is still a long way to go on the road towards building a basis for mutual trust and benefit. (photo courtesy of Agence France Presse)