Some advice for China's leaders

`If Beijing has thousands of reasons for not letting Taiwan join the WHO, its officials should take a moderate and tolerant approach to explain things clearly to the Taiwanese people.'

When former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) visited the US in 1995 and subsequently announced that Taiwan would hold a direct presidential election, Beijing immediately staged a military exercise and launched missiles. The result was that Lee was elected by an overwhelming majority in 1996.

In 2000, I led a delegation of Chinese scholars studying in the US to visit Taiwan and observe Taiwan's second presidential election. As we watched the television in our hotel on the evening of March 16, we saw then Chinese premier Zhu Rongji (朱鎔基) harshly criticize leading figures in Taiwanese politics. With a severe expression on his face, Zhu spoke in a harsh tone and warned the Taiwanese people not to elect the wrong leader or they would regret it. After we heard such a message from Zhu, all of us looked at each other not knowing what to do and felt something was wrong. Just as expected, an opinion poll the next day showed that Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) electoral support rate went up immediately and that the support rates for Lien Chan (連戰) and James Soong (宋楚瑜) went down correspondingly. The Taiwanese media jokingly said that Beijing played the role of a "super campaign-helper" in these two presidential elections.

History can play a joke on people. As Taiwan's presidential election is coming up soon, Beijing once again seems to have served as Chen's campaign helper with its recent moves. One was Beijing's resistance to Taiwan's entry into the World Health Organization (WHO). The other was its attempts to push through the Article 23 anti-subversion law in Hong Kong.

Taiwan's intent to join international organizations is a complex and thorny problem. If China takes a laissez-faire approach to Taiwan's attempts, there will be "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan" in the international community. If China spares no efforts to shut Taiwan out, China will be unpopular because there must be some rationality behind Taiwan's attempt to seek a space in the international community. Instead of protesting against, shutting out and blocking Taiwan's efforts, China might as well try to provide guidance according to the circumstances. In fact, it is not impossible to solve this problem. In the past, Taiwan had joined various international organizations, such as APEC, the WTO, the Olympics and Asian Development Bank, under the name of "China Taipei" or "Chinese Taipei."

The situation concerning the WHO is different, because the WHO is an intergovernmental organization and only sovereign nations can join it. However, there are always ways to get around the rules. The charters of the WHO and other intergovernmental organizations prescribe that a district of a sovereign nation can become an "associate member." Beijing can help Taiwan become an "associate member" of the WHO or attend the World Health Assembly (WHA) as an observer. Why can't Taiwan join the WHO if it already joined an intergovernmental organization such as the Asian Development Bank? Hong Kong has joined some intergovernmental organizations, such as the International Maritime Organization and World Meteorological Organization, but why can't Taiwan join them? Doesn't Beijing claim that Taiwan will enjoy more rights than Hong Kong under "one country, two systems"? Consequently, it is illogical from a legal perspective to block Taiwan's entry into the WHO.

From a moral perspective, the fact that the 23 million people of Taiwan were kept out of the WHO's medical net during the peak of the SARS epidemic made people feel the lack of humanitarianism and sympathy shown by Beijing. Besides, SARS possibly originated in southern China. No wonder the Taiwanese people felt enraged because SARS patients in Taiwan could not evoke other countries' sympathy and receive care. I know many American scholars who are friendly toward China also disapproved of Beijing's course of action. If Beijing has thousands of reasons for not letting Taiwan join the WHO, its officials should take a moderate and tolerant approach to explain things clearly to the Taiwanese people. They should not adopt a rude, arrogant posture to rebuff the Taiwanese people by saying that "Taiwan is not qualified at all to join [the WHO]." Their words truly hurt the Taiwanese people.

Taking advantage of this WHO incident to build up the Taiwanese people's bitterness and provoke their hatred toward China, Chen then announced a referendum on WHO membership. For Chen, the WHO incident, without doubt, is helping his government survive the economic and political crises that it has been facing in the run-up to the presidential election. It also forced the pan-blue camp to become more passive. According to an opinion poll, Chen's support grew 6 percent after the referendum announcement. Beijing originally planned to block Taiwan's entry into the WHO so as to check the gradual rise of independence activists. However, Beijing's actions have allowed Chen to gradually cut Taiwan off from China and bring Taiwan closer to independence.

Hong Kong's Article 23 anti-subversion law has also had a profound, negative impact on Taiwan. From the very beginning the Taiwanese people have had a lot of doubt about the framework of "one country, two systems." After seeing what happened to Hong Kong, the Taiwanese people will feel terrified about the consequences of "one country, two systems" should Taiwan implement it. Robert Scalapino and Ramon Myers, renowned China specialists in the US, recently said that Hong Kong does not need Article 23. They are puzzled about Beijing setting a time limit for the Article 23 legislation. They also think that the Article 23 incident severely undermined Beijing's work on Taiwan.

Beijing urged the Hong Kong government to quickly implement the anti-subversion law for fear that Hong Kong may become a base for subversion in China. True to form, Beijing showed a lack of confidence in its approach to the Hong Kong problem. Hong Kong was once an international base of operations for spies during British rule, but the activities of these spies never shook China's political power. Will Hong Kong become a threat now that it has returned to Chinese rule? China's economic and political scenes have been quite good after new leaders took over in Beijing. The SARS outbreak has gradually subsided as well. So it is difficult to understand why China feels the urgent need to make Hong Kong pass Article 23 within a time limit. To get to the bottom of the matter, it is easiest to attack and conquer a fortress from the inside. The maintenance of national security requires internal unity and solidarity, not the enforcement of laws and decrees in the peripheral districts. If more people like Liu Liankun (劉連昆) and Shao Zhengzhong (邵正忠) show up again in Beijing, it will still be useless for Hong Kong to pass 10 national security laws.

Fortunately, the Hong Kong government responded to public opinion and postponed Article 23. But because the incident has already damaged the reputation and practice of "one country, two systems," Chen now has an excuse to resist unification and promote independence. Beijing should review the situation and see what lessons it can learn from the incident and implement the "Three Represents" in its work on Hong Kong and Taiwan. Beijing should seriously study public opinion in both Hong Kong and Taiwan, and attach importance to their interests. Beijing should stop being the lead campaigner of an independence activist.

Zhang Jialin is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

Translated by Grace Shaw