Common sense answers by Bruce Herschensohn to questions about the current state of affairs between China and Taiwan, the United States, communism, and the United Nations.
Bruce Herschensohn is a savvy political analyst with years of hands on experience in the geopolitical scene as well as a respected political commentator. Herschensohn seems to always have an answer that is right on. He is a straight arrow kind of analyst with in-depth knowledge, common sense, and the all important wisdom to put things in their proper perspective.
Herschensohn is currently Adjunct Professor teaching U.S. Foreign Policy at Pepperdine University's School of Public Policy. He has written several books, including Passport ; Across the Taiwan Strait: Democracy: The Bridge Between Mainland China and Taiwan; and Hong Kong at the Handover.
Herschensohn just finished his latest book, Taiwan: The Threatened Democracy. It will be available when published in January, 2007.
Bruce continues answering questions posed by The Epoch Times.
ET: In March of this year there were 100,000 protesting in Taiwan on the one year anniversary of China's passage of the Anti-Secession Law that authorizes war if Taiwan declares formal independence. How would you characterize this group of protesters? We have been told that 80% or so of the Taiwanese people prefer the status quo.
BH: I doubt it is 80%, but I have talked to countless people who do want the status quo there, and the reason is always the same. They are afraid, they are afraid of war. Or they are afraid of losing the defense of the Taiwan Relations Act, created and supported by the United States. And I have to believe that one of them who is afraid is President Chen Shui-Bian, himself. He is not consistent. I thought he did a wonderful thing in what I thought was the abolition of the National Unification Council, but then later either he or his bureaucracy said that it "ceased to function" rather than "abolished" as was originally stated. But we all know that it changed after he had conversations with people here representing the State Department.
Later he had an interview with the Washington Post on March 14, in which he said that everyone could relax, that the Nationalist Party in the Legislative Yuan is going to prevent those things from happening anyway. Can you imagine President Bush saying, "hey relax we are going to leave Iraq, the democrats are saying to get out." I mean, for goodness sake, there are times when President Chen doesn't act like a President. I thought from January the first of this year he was finally saying the things that would make him a presidential president. But he goes back on it, he vacillates, I don't know what his core principle is. I want to be for someone in all of this, I don't just want to be against some people. I find that I am very much for the Taiwan Solidarity Union, but it is a very small party. As for the D.P.P., I am for it but it is very difficult to continually support President Chen when I have absolutely no idea what he is going to say tomorrow. He says something terrific, I applaud it, I rewrite parts of the book, after thinking he is a better guy than I thought. Then two days later I have to cross it all out.
ET: Would you consider the group of 100,000 who marched in protest in Taiwan an extremist group?
BH: Of course not. I agree with those who marched in protest of the Anti-Secession Law. If those who didn't protest the Anti-Secession Law want to live under the Chinese regime they are free to go across the Strait and live there, but they don't choose to do that. Therefore something tells me that they prefer the freedoms they enjoy in Taiwan because there is no problem in suddenly having their residence in the PRC. I could do it tomorrow from the U.S. if I wanted to do it. They could too.
ET: What about the idea that some hold that Taiwan is not as important as the entire Southeast region?
"...About three quarters of the nations of the world are smaller than Taiwan."
BH: Democracy is important. Freedom is important. It is important in a very small country and in a very big country. That's what is important. And you must be consistent. The reason why we are in Iraq is not for Iraq alone but for the entire Mideast. And if you listen to the second inaugural address of the President, it is for the world, that everyone in the world should live in liberty. That is what is important. And talking about 23 million people in Taiwan, of course it is very small compared to China, but about three quarters of the nations of the world are smaller than Taiwan. So from that perspective it is not that small.
ET: Lately there have been some rumblings such as from Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Kim Jong Il of North Korea. And of course Fidel Castro in Cuba is still around. What is going on with Communism outside of China today? Is it alive and doing well?
BH: Certainly it is not as alive as it was during the days of the Soviet Union. Today there are individual leaders who believe in communism or just hate the United States or a combination of both. Outside of China, the real communists are Castro and Kim Jung Il of North Korea. Of course you can't write off Hugo Chavez of Venezuela with his heavy leftist tendencies and anti-American posturing. I do know that there is a lot of drifting toward the left in Latin America. But I don't think it is the kind of threat that we saw during the cold war. As more countries left communism during the 90's they prospered not only economically but in terms of individual liberties. I think that it showed so much to the world.
ET: What about the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese regime?
"They (Chinese Regime) are getting everything they want."
BH: They are getting everything they want. One thing that President Reagan did regarding the Soviet Union is that he did not give them everything they wanted. In Reykjavik he said we are going to go ahead with the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). That would have totally ruined them economically. They were only a military super power because almost all their resources were in the military. They were not a super power agriculturally, economically, morally, or industrially; only militarily. So that would have ruined them, because they had their entire investment in missiles, particularly long range missiles―their ICBMs. SDI threatened to ruin them. In addition we didn't continually bail them out as we used to. Every season if there was too much drought or too much rain we would come to their aid and we finally stopped the aid.
"We are investing in China and we are making it a Super Power."
However, China is getting everything it wants. We are investing in China and we are making it a super power. We are not saying, "Gee, you are adding two missiles to the fleet of 784 missiles aimed at Taiwan, you are adding two missiles every week," and we don't say that's a change in the status quo. They suffer no punishment. And they continue with human rights violations with no punishment. They are part of the permanent normal trade relations status that we have, PNTR.
ET: Do you believe that China should be contained, and if so how could that possibly be done?
BH: Yes, but it is getting so difficult. I used to be on my own personal boycott of goods from China, I wouldn't buy anything made in China. It has now become impossible. I want to live a normal life but every time you go to a store to get anything, it all appears to be made in China. So my personal boycott has certainly wavered only because of necessity.
"...The only thing left is to bring China into line through economic punishments."
Diplomatically we made a mistake when President Carter gave China diplomatic recognition. There is little you can do diplomatically once you give diplomatic recognition. Other than militarily, which is always the last course, the only thing left is to bring China into line through economic punishments.
I will tell you one story that happened during the Clinton administration. There was a period when China was making copyright violations of our CDs and our movies. It's doing it again now, but at the time I'm talking about President Clinton's administration and the business community got together and warned China that we would impose as much as 100% tariff increases if that continued. China backed down. The administration at that time did not know that it was going to be temporary, but China backed down. And I thought that was pretty good and that I had to give credit to President Clinton and to the business community.
However, it seemed that they were willing to do that for copyright violations but not for human rights violations. And that got me. Because it meant it was their own wallets that were being affected. And that's why they cared. But when it came to human rights violations they just rode it over as if they didn't exist. They do exist.
In the upcoming Part III, Bruce Herschensohn will continue answering questions posed by The Epoch Times.
In Part III, Herschensohn continues answering questions posed by The Epoch Times.
Feeds