Breaking taboos and creating space

By Melody Chen
STAFF REPORTER
Tuesday, Dec 02, 2003, Page 4

Christopher Hughes says that Taiwan must stand up for itself in the international community, but warns against actions that are excessively provocative. PHOTO: GEORGE TSORNG, TAIPEI TIMES

Taipei Times: Officials in the Bush administration have made a number of comments regarding Taiwan's pursuit of a new constitution and referendum legislation. Washington's main point is that it doesn't want to see any unilateral change to the status quo. But the US has avoided defining what it regards as Taiwanese independence. What is the US' difficulty in defining Taiwanese independence?

Hughes: I can understand the US' legitimate concern that they do not want to be dragged into a war. They think the status quo has worked quite well in Taiwan. That's the best they can do. That's probably right; it is the best they can do. They don't want to have a war with China, and that's not good for Taiwan, either.

The question is how you preserve the status quo. The Americans have to somehow maintain the status quo. That's very difficult for them to do. It does require some imaginative thinking and some ambiguity [on] the issue of statehood.

In the Taiwan Relations Act, a US domestic legislation, Taiwan is treated as a state. But of course, in its treaties with China and in the UN, the US cannot recognize Taiwan as a state. So there is [going] to be some ambiguity. But it's really for [the benefit of] Taiwan. I do believe they are doing their best for Taiwan.

The issue now is really the Chinese side. China wants the US to be clearer about opposing Taiwan's independence. The pressure is on the US from Beijing. They want the US to say they will not accept Taiwan's independence. [Beijing] thinks that would influence the [presidential] election here.

So that's the strategy. It's very difficult for the Americans -- they don't want to make it clear. So they have to find the right words and the right formula to calm Beijing down a bit.

Taipei Times: The former head of the American Institute in Taiwan, Richard Bush, said during his visit to Taiwan last month that Taiwan cannot avoid a choice concerning China. He said Taiwan's basic choice is between either accommodating or resisting Chinese power. If Bush is correct, how long might the status quo last?

Hughes: You use the term "status quo." It's a bit misleading because things always change in international politics. What I mean by "status quo" is the kind of rules that have been developed and within those rules you can have a lot of change.

Taiwan can say what it likes and do what it likes. It can even declare independence. [But] it doesn't matter because the US won't recognize Taiwan.

The only thing that would really change the situation is the US changing its policy, either by recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign state or by recognizing Taiwan as part of the People's Republic of China. That's the only thing that will change the status quo.

One thing that might make the US change its policy would be the referendum. If there is a referendum in Taiwan and a big majority of the people say they want to be recognized as an independent state, and have a formal declaration of independence, that will make it very difficult for the Americans to not recognize them.

But that would create a very dangerous situation. The Americans have a real fear of the referendum happening. They don't want to get to [a stage] where they would be forced to recognize Taiwan and probably have a conflict with China.

My impression is that the [referendum] legislation itself is not that important. It's the political message [that matters]. Now it's been accepted -- and another taboo has been broken in Taiwan.

I think the defensive referendum is a very clever thing if [President] Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) doesn't overplay his hand. [But] now it looks like he is overplaying his hand because he wants to have a referendum with the presidential election. It will destabilize things. That's very dangerous. He has been accused of using it to get votes. That's not good politics.

Taipei Times: Is it possible for Taiwan to avoid disrupting regional peace and stability in the course of pursuing independence? How can it expand its international space without damaging regional stability?

Hughes: I think it has already done that. If you look back over the past twenty years, most people thought democratization in Taiwan would create some real conflict. Maybe there would be war or maybe Taiwan would have some civil disorder.

Of course there are problems and instability, but still, things are not that bad. The crisis has been managed. It's a matter of balance, of people knowing what the limits are.

Taiwan always has to push the limits. It would be crazy for Taiwan not to push and fight from its corner. If it doesn't, all the pressure is from the other side. If you don't push, you won't know where the limits are. If you don't push, people would say: "Let's just get rid of the problem."

After the crisis during the first [democratic] presidential election in Taiwan, the Clinton administration said it could understand that Taiwan had to sit down and negotiate with China and solve the problem.

That's a very Clinton-like approach: Let's have talks and solve the problem. We know that it's not that simple. You cannot just sit down and talk. You have to know what your status is.

So [former president] Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) had to come up with the state-to-state theory. If you look at the context, Taiwan was really in a tight corner. When Taiwan's in a really tight corner, it always has to fight back and push back. If it doesn't, the crisis for Taiwan will be much more serious.

Taipei Times: The government says it hopes Taiwan's democratic experience can facilitate China's democratization. To what extent can Taiwan's democracy influence China's political system and in what way can we contribute to their democracy?

Hughes: The problem is that they [the Chinese people] don't get accurate information. If you go to mainland China, they have a very distorted view of Taiwan because the information they have comes through the official media or the Internet.

The official media, of course, only report the bad things about Taiwan and nothing good. The Internet is very nationalistic. There's a lot of emotional talk but not much about the real political situation. But there is some. You do see it coming in.

Even recently, on the referendum issue, if you look at the Internet chat forums, there's a lot of anti-Taiwanese talk, but you still see some talk like "What's wrong with the referendum?" and "Why shouldn't there be a referendum?"

[Media control] is the biggest problem. The Chinese people cannot travel to Taiwan, so their information is very limited. They only get the bad things about Taiwan, like corruption and disasters. They don't know the good things.

When I go to China, my biggest problem is to explain to them what's happening in Taiwan. Most people are not that concerned about independence and unification. They want to have a safe environment. They want to stop corruption.

That's what most people are concerned about. If you want to have a better society, you have to have a better political system. That's why democracy has happened in Taiwan.

The independence and unification debate is about the process, but that's not the whole thing.

It's very difficult to explain to the Chinese people what democracy is about. It's about efficient government, social security, a safe environment, better schools et cetera. That's what they need to understand.