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 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 published in January, 2007.
Bruce continues answering questions posed by The Epoch Times.
ET: In the past people assumed the United Nations would play a vital role in bringing human rights abuses into line. But as we see, the United Nations continues to allow countries with known abysmal human rights records full participation in their human rights committees.
BH: The United Nations organization is worthless. In fact it is worse than worthless because it leans toward non-democracies. And it just isn't Kofi Anan. They have had seven Secretary Generals since the birth of the U.N., and other than the first two, the rest of them were just awful, really awful.
"One Good Example of How the United Nations Leans Very Heavily to the Left is How the PRC Got in"
One good example of how the U.N. leans very heavily to the left is how the PRC got in. They were so upset they were not in the U.N—but that Taiwan (The Republic of China) was a member, that the PRC [People's Republic of China] got together with Indonesia in its formation of an independent international organization. They had the communist nations and third world nations behind them, saying they would join CONEFO (the Conference of New Emerging Forces.)
"The United Nations Lost More in the Expulsion of Taiwan Than Taiwan Ever Lost"
CONEFO did not mature but their objective was achieved in that Taiwan eventually got kicked out of the U.N. That was in 1971. I believe it is an honor to get kicked out of the U.N., and that it is humiliating to try to get back into an organization that kicked you out. The U.N. lost more in the expulsion of Taiwan than Taiwan ever lost. Taiwan ought to declare October 25 as a National Holiday. That was the day Taiwan's representatives no longer had to sit in the same room with murderers, terrorists, rapists, hostage-takers and slave-masters. We should have that luck.
ET: Some seem to think that we need to get the concurrence from other countries before we take severe actions like we did in Iraq for example. But how could we get rational concurrence from countries in a heavily left leaning organization like the United Nations? Should not the United States in its traditional role as "policeman of the world" rely more on its own ability to make rational, good decisions in favor of freedom and democracy with some support from other democratic nations?
BH: I do believe that to be true. And we have a history of that. I was a kid when World War II was over. But one of the things that got me to realize what a great nation this was, was after World War II. Whereas so many other nations who had that extent of a victory—worldwide victory really, would have made the world their taxpayers. We did exactly the opposite. We fined our taxpayers so that they could contribute to the building of democracies of our former foes as well as funds to rebuild the infrastructure of our friends. Wow! That is something. And that's when I had the realization that it was not only the fact that we were victorious, but it was what we achieved in victory that simply had no equal.
ET: One of the things that I think is not covered enough is China's plans for expansion. And I think that there are many signs and facts that could be put together to prove that.
BH: There is no question about that. They believe they are the middle kingdom, that this is their destiny. It is particularly worrisome to those countries that do know about their dreams in Asia.
ET: Why do you think not enough accurate journalism exists to provide readers worldwide with objective information on the Chinese regime?
"I Don't Believe You Can Objectively Talk About China if You Have a Financial Interest in China"
BH: It's a real shame. There are so many financial aspects to it among those people who continually applaud China that it is sickening. I don't believe you can objectively talk about China if you have a financial interest in China. I think that anyone who has such financial interest is suspect. And there is so much of it—big businesses and little businesses—that you do not hear that much about human rights violations there or about the fact that the government of China wants to take over Taiwan or that China has 784 missiles—or more now—opposite Taiwan, or that they have the Anti-Secession Law, etc.
ET: China bargained for the Olympics and they got it. During the Olympics, this totalitarian regime is likely to be torturing people and suppressing news about any revolts that may surge during the Olympics as they do today.
"They Never Should Have Allowed China to Host the Olympics."
BH: Absolutely true. The Olympic Committee should never have done it. They never should have allowed China to host the Olympics. They say that they take politics out of the Olympics. Well they sure do, to such an extent that it is against all moral judgment. Also in terms of Taiwan, they will have to compete in the Olympics with the ridiculous name of Chinese Taipei. I wish Taiwan would say, "The devil with you, we are not going to compete. Big deal if we don't participate in the Olympics. We are not going under Chinese Taipei, we are not part of China."
It is just humiliating. And it appears at this time that China also wants the Olympic Torch to go to Taiwan from Beijing and then back to Beijing rather than directly to Taiwan from another country so that Taiwan would be considered a domestic stop rather an international stop. And it also appears that President Chen won't allow that to happen. Good for him, but we can't always count on President Chen to maintain such policies.
China's New Technique and Sophistication—Acting as if They Already Own Taiwan
What China has done since passing the Anti-Secession Law is what I would call a new sophistication; they simply act as if they already own Taiwan. Particularly with the KMT—the Kuomintang—and the PFP—the People's First Party—making those visits from Taipei to Beijing and meeting with Hu Jintao. I believe that China has a new technique and it is just to act as if they already own Taiwan by offering those Pandas to Taiwan, improving cross-strait relations in terms of tourism and the Lunar New Year, and allowing Taiwan visitors more than ever before.
And I believe it is very smart and clever. And the government of China feels the interference to them comes from the Democratic Progressive Party, the DPP, and they call the DPP separatists and splitists.
ET: Politics is just very difficult in Taiwan for creating a truly unifying force. It looks like Lee Teng-hui may be the man there who still has the credibility in terms of somebody you can depend on, whose word is good, etc.
BH: If everything works out well in Taiwan, and, boy, do I hope that it does, Lee Teng-hui will be known as the Father of his Country. He will be their George Washington.
ET: Why do some say that India and Japan are the lynch pins for containing China?
"Leaders of India consider China a greater enemy than Pakistan"
BH: Because India and China have been at each other's throats for a long time. They fought a war in 1962. And in the wars that India has had with Pakistan, China has always taken Pakistan's side. So there have been those leaders of India that consider China a greater enemy than Pakistan. That war in 1962 was a pretty tough one and China won about 10% of Indian held Kashmir that they still hold.
One of the main reasons that Americans don't even remember it is because it happened at the same time as the Cuban missile crisis in October of 1962. And everyone was paying attention to the Cuban missile crisis here and paying very little attention to what was going on in Asia. India and the People's Republic of China have always been competitors because India is a democracy, and has been a democracy since their independence in 1947, and China is non-democratic. In terms of population, they are pretty near equal now.
ET: Do you think the United States is pursuing a containment policy and does it court India and Japan with that in mind?
BH: No, I don't think so. At one time we had a strategic partnership with China, I don't know if we still use that phrase or not. But we certainly did. We do it economically for sure and politically we avoid calling them on the carpet. Whereas if Taiwan makes the slightest move we do call Taiwan on the carpet. We bring the phrase "Status Quo" into play—for example, calling it a violation of the "Status Quo" when President Chen wants to do something as democratic as having a referendum. And yet we do not call China on the carpet when they do something as dramatic as continually increasing the number of their missiles.
As for Japan, it matters a great deal as it is on the side of democratic nations, and just before China passed the Anti-Secession Law, the acting secretary general of Japan's ruling party said that "it would be wrong for us to send a signal to China that the United States and Japan will watch and tolerate China's military invasion of Taiwan." Shortly thereafter, a U.S.-Japan Joint Agreement was announced, stating that security in the Taiwan Strait "is a common strategic objective."
ET: What nations are the greatest threats to the United States?
"The Chinese Regime Does Not Receive Any Punishments for Their Policies or Their Ambitions"
BH: In the short range, in the Middle East it would certainly be Iran and Syria. And until we achieve what we have to achieve in Iraq, it will remain Iraq. I would say in the long range China is going to be added to that equation. Long range because I see no reason why they would change their policies or their ambitions. The Chinese regime does not receive any punishments for their policies or their ambitions. They continue to get the rewards of free nations, regrettably without the United States doing anything of substance to get China to change its policies.
In Part IV, Herschensohn continues answering questions posed by The Epoch Times.
Feeds