Mon, May 31, 2004 page3

• Words speak louder than actions in cross-strait politics

  Shelley Rigger, Brown associate professor of East Asian Politics at Davidson College's department of political science, has written several books on Taiwan, including ``Politics in Taiwan'' and ``From Opposition to Power: Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party.'' In Taipei last week to attend a conference entitled ``New Vision of Taiwan Strategic Security Based on Taiwan Entity'' on May 26, Rigger shared her thoughts on recent development of cross-strait relations and impact of President Chen Shui-bian's inaugural speech with ``Taipei Times'' reporter Melody Chen.

  • /
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Taipei Times (TT): Taiwan always says China misunderstands its efforts to deepen democracy as steps toward independence, such as the referendum and the constitutional reform. Do you perceive any independence intentions in these democratic steps?

  Shelley Rigger: There are individuals and groups of individuals within Taiwan who have the long-term ambition of achieving formal and complete independence. Some of them do imagine some of these steps can move Taiwan in that direction.

  There is the possibility that for some individuals, [independence] is the intention behind changes like the referendum. But I do not agree that this is President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) or the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) intention.

  

  PHOTO: GEORGE TSORNG, TAIPEI TIMES

  I don't think President Chen has a timetable for independence that begins with passing the referendum law and [ends with] implementing the constitution in 2008 to achieve independence.

  TT: Beijing says it will not hear what Chen Shui-bian says but will only see what he does. China's leaders said they are willing to sacrifice the 2008 Olympic Games to crush independence movements in Taiwan if necessary. How should President Chen react to such statements?

  Rigger: We want to take the Taiwanese leadership at its word. If you say this is what you are doing, then we accept that's what you are doing. It's not healthy and it doesn't get us anywhere to constantly be questioning, doubting and probing. We have to believe in each other; otherwise we are getting nowhere.

  But likewise, we have to accept what the People's Republic of China [PRC] says to some extent as being what's really in their heart. If we compare their statements in objective measurement of their interest, it is easy to believe what they say.

  What they say is: `We don't need to push unification. But we must prevent independence.' What they are preparing to sacrifice everything for is to stop the move toward independence.

  President Chen has a lot of room for taking actions that convey the message that he is not trying to push for the way.

  TT: From Beijing's statements on May 17 and 24, it is clear China still has a lot of doubts and concerns about Taiwan moving towards independence. What may Taipei do to remove the suspicion?

  Rigger: Part of the problem is, of course, the PRC always imagines the worst. Maybe that's a strategic necessity for them.

  They always plan for the worst possible case. They assume constitutional reform will be Taiwanese independence.

  The way constitutional reform was initiated and discussed at the beginning of the political campaign really gave them more reason to make this argument. I don't think the Americans would have been inclined to accept their logic except that there was some reason to do so.

  [President Chen] made a big announcement on Sept. 28 talking about a new constitution. That really gave the PRC a lot of ammunition to use. They said only new countries get new constitutions. New countries use a new constitution to reconstitute their country.

  If President Chen had talked about constitutional reform or revision or amendment, it would not have attracted the level of concern that it did.

  The fact he is now back to the constitutional reform, revision and amendment in his inauguration speech, in a way, took a big circle to get back to where we started. That process of going around damaged US-Taiwan relations. It also damaged US-PRC relations.

  There may be something in the logic that [taking the circle] was necessary and valuable.

  But I am not smart enough to see that. I see that damage was done and I don't know how it moves us forward.

  Taiwan could pursue constitutional revision through the painful process outlining the existing constitution. I have been talking to some people in the blue camp recently, and they agree the electoral system needs to be reformed. They understand the balance of power between the president and the legislature is unfixed.

  TT: You said the "one country, two systems" formulation is dead in Taiwan. Ralph Cossa, president of the Pacific Forum CSIS (a Honolulu-based research institute affiliated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington), suggested that China invent a more creative and flexible principle to apply to cross-strait relations, such as "one country, two states" or "one country, two governments" model. What do you make of the idea?

  Rigger: If that is something the PRC could accept, that would be hard for many Taiwanese to swallow. But it might be possible because Taiwan could get a lot of benefit from putting this conflict behind it.

  The "peace rising" in China is inevitably closing in on Taiwan. There will increasingly be a desire in Taiwan to make the situation better. If you could get the PRC to talk about something like the "one country, two states," even though a lot of Taiwanese don't want to think of themselves as Chinese, they might go for it anyway if they are pragmatic enough.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Bologna advance to face AC Milan in Coppa final

  • 2

    Bukele proposes prisoner swap with Maduro

  • 3

    Wild’s top line too much for Vegas Golden Knights

  • 4

    HK, Macau residency rules tightened

  • 5

    Eric Chu, 2 others to be questioned for leading illegal assembly last week