Common sense answers by Bruce Herschensohn to questions about the current state of affairs between China and Taiwan, the U.S., Communism, and the U.N.
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 is the author of 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, and is scheduled to be published in January, 2007.
Here Bruce gives answers to questions posed by The Epoch Times.
ET: What book did you write that is most pertinent to today's international geopolitical situation?
BH: Passport, it's a novel, but 95% true, I changed the names and things like that and made it readable for a general audience rather than for think-tank audiences. It was the history of the cold war really, but a great deal about Hong Kong, where I went almost every year for 37 years. And so a great deal of it deals with Hong Kong and China.
ET: What do you think of Hong Kong today as a place to visit?
BH: I went there every year because I loved it. After 1997 it is memory rather than realism, I find it is becoming less and less unique as a city and so many of the freedoms have been destroyed under the "one country, two systems" establishment of the PRC (People's Republic of China).
ET: Are you surprised that the protests in Hong Kong were successful at least temporarily to postpone Article 23 that would have severely restricted the freedoms of the Hong Kong people?
BH: I was delighted that it did.
ET: Do you think that has put off the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) from taking away more freedoms?
"They [Chinese regime] want to use Hong Kong as an example to Taiwan"
BH: No, it has only postponed it. They want Taiwan. When they get Taiwan, if and when they get Taiwan, then they don't care. Right now if you're a tourist going to Hong Kong you don't notice any changes at all. The skyline is there, the hotels are there, the shopping is there; it is a beautiful city. I have been there a few times since the handover, but I don't go there with any regularity any more. But to the visitor it is fine. And that's exactly the way the PRC wants to keep it. They want to use Hong Kong as an example to Taiwan and to say to Taiwan, "see, look, it works", but they are only talking about the economics not freedom, freedom is invisible.
It will change I believe if they should take Taiwan because then they will have achieved their objectives. They then don't have to hold Hong Kong as an example of the "one country, two systems" to those people who don't understand what has happened to freedom since 1997.
Also, why is it for 50 years? What is supposed to happen in 2047 when China takes over Hong Kong completely? The first time I went to Hong Kong was 1960 and they were worried about 1997 then. But I was a young man then, and I thought oh my God, 1997, that is forever, who has to worry about that? But you do have to worry about that because time goes on and 2047 is going to come.
"There are a couple of incidents involving The Epoch Times … in the book"
ET: You are aware of the thugs that broke into The Epoch Times office in Hong Kong and destroyed their printing press. Obviously that is evidence of suppression of free speech. China is the biggest censor of free information in the world.
BH: There is just no question about that. The incident with The Epoch Times is nothing unusual for China at all. In my latest book, Taiwan, the Threatened Democracy, the largest chapter is on "one country, two systems." It includes what has happened chronologically from July 1, 1997 until the time I finished writing the book, and it is a very large chapter. There are a couple of incidents involving The Epoch Times that I have in the book. But it is miniscule compared to all the things that they have done to The Epoch Times.
ET: It seems there is a fuzzy notion held by people today that although we supposedly support freedom around the world it is okay to support a totalitarian regime in China in deference to the democratic nation of Taiwan.
BH: Well it is fuzzy, our government is making it fuzzy. The State Department makes it fuzzy through every administration. And a number of presidents follow the advice of the State Department. The State Department wants stability not freedom. And that is the way they operate.
"Why is Taiwan not entitled to a state of its own when the Palestinian Authority is entitled to a state of its own?"
Why do we have a one state resolution between China and Taiwan when you have a two state resolution with the Palestine Authority and Israel? Why is Taiwan not entitled to a state of its own when the Palestinian Authority is entitled to a state of its own?
Taiwan has no ambition to take over China. Much of the Palestinian Authority has the stated ambition to take over Israel. Taiwan is adamantly pro U.S. whereas much of the Palestinian Authority is adamantly opposed to the U.S. Yet we say that it is a two state solution─they should each have a state of their own.
But with Taiwan and China, we say no, it is "one China". Well who the devil says it is? Fine, there is one China, but Taiwan is not a part of it. The Peoples Republic of China has never had its flag over Taiwan even for a minute.
In fact in the past 111 years, only 4 years of Taiwan's history have been under the jurisdiction of any previous government of China and even those few years were involuntary. So it doesn't add up. Something is seriously wrong here.
ET: As an American I have always wondered for many years why the U.S. sold the Taiwanese down the drain.
BH: The U.S. did it because President Carter sold them down the drain. He suddenly switched diplomatic relations on December 15, 1978 when he suddenly gave a speech to the American people to declare we now recognize the People's Republic of China. And to make it worse he said it is the legal government of China and Taiwan is part of it. Wow! That is really wild. And for anyone to blame it on the Shanghai Communique is just a misreading, that is not what it says, it does not even mention the People's Republic of China.
ET: Do you think anyone in the State Department appreciates the value of democracy and Taiwan Independence over the one China policy?
BH: There are always a few people in the Bureaucracy who are on the right side, but they get shoved aside. Yes, I would say there are some very good people in the State Department, but there are very few. And as we call it in the United States, they are in the closet.
ET: Is the policy for the status quo so strong that no one will entertain any suggestion for change?
BH: In the State Department they don't want change. I am not talking about Condoleezza Rice, I am talking about the careerists, about the bureaucracy. They simply don't want it. I want to read something about what President Bush said about the status quo in my book.
Quoting President Bush on the Unacceptable Status Quo in the Middle East
"It was the status quo in the Middle East that led to the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, it was the status quo in the Middle east that led to the attack of the U.S. Cole that killed 17 American sailors. It was the status quo in the Middle East that produced 19 hijackers that took planes and crashed them into the pentagon and the World Trade Towers and it killed nearly 3,000 innocent people on September 11, 2001. The status quo in the Middle East was dangerous and unacceptable and our security demanded that we change it. Secondly, the idea that lasting stability can be achieved by denying people a voice in the future control of their destiny is wrong."
Now those are the words of President Bush, totally valid regarding the Middle East and its validity can someday be moved eastward. I doubt very much whether the Department of State wrote that.
In Part II, Herschensohn continues answering questions posed by The Epoch Times.
Feeds