LOS ANGELES - Pepperdine University's School of Public Policy hosted a forum March 8th on The Worth of U.S.-Taiwan Relations at their Malibu campus.
Some important issues regarding U.S.-Taiwan relations were addressed at the forum including the validity of current U.S. policy regarding Taiwan and cross-strait relations between the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (Taiwan).
The flowering of democracy on the island of Taiwan under the shadow of the Chinese communist regime across the Taiwan strait is one of the great success stories in international geopolitics. But a complete success in terms of full independence has yet to be realized by the Taiwanese people.
The Chinese communist regime continues to make strong claims to sovereignty over Taiwan, using military intimidation and its anti-secession law enacted last year. As the economic and military influence of the PRC grows it calls into question the commitment of the United States to Taiwan.
The welcoming address was given by James R. Wilburn, Dean of the School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University. A brief speech was then given by Dr. Wu-lien WEI, Director General of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Los Angeles.
The forum was structured in two parts. The first part focused on the U.S. perspective on the Taiwan-China relationship. The 2nd or last half of the forum focused on the Taiwan perspective on the Taiwan-China relationship.
We now continue with the comments made by Professor Herschensohn. Following Herschensohn is the third panelist, Professor Robert Kaufman.
Professor Bruce Herschensohn, Pepperdine:
"Let me roll back the calendar to 1992. A great man in my opinion became president of Taiwan (The Republic of China), a great man by the name of President Lee Teng-Hui. He totally democratized it".
"Opposition parties were now okay, the dictatorship was done, and on May the 1st of 1992, he did a surprising thing. He said, I am paraphrasing, 'we no longer have a claim over China, we are not China, we are not the legal government of China; we are Taiwan'."
"But the name of the country was still The Republic of China, so you still had the People's Republic of China on the continent and you had the Republic of China on Taiwan. So in effect it sure sounded like two Chinas. But he did not want it, he had no claim on China, he was not going to invade the mainland, and posed no threat to China".
"Now let me advance the calendar to today. We use those two phrases, One-China Policy and Retaining the Status Quo . Those are the two phrases that we use".
"Right now there is a large constituency in Taiwan that wants to change its name. They are not The Republic of China but their name says they are. So there is a large constituency to change the name. President Chen, the current president of Taiwan hoped to have a referendum on that to change the name as desired by the people of Taiwan. Do you know who's against it? The United States, we are against it because it changes the status quo. We don't want a referendum on anything and we certainly don't want a name change".
"So President Chen thought Taiwan would have a referendum on changing the name of state enterprises such as China Steel and China Airlines, because they are not China Airlines or China Steel but Taiwan Steel and Airlines".
"But do you know who is against it? The United States of America is against it, because it would change the status quo. Then Chen now wants to have a referendum in 2007 on a new constitution. This referendum would allow the people of Taiwan to decide whether they would want the new constitution, and if so, it would replace the current one which is China, The Republic of China. The United States is very much opposed to that".
"What is significant is that at a time when we correctly and so justifiably give so much praise to the people of Iraq voting in a referendum to ratify a constitution that we hope will be a new democracy; we are opposed to do that in Taiwan that already is a democracy".
"Now when it comes to The People's Republic of China we act far differently regarding that status quo. President Hu Jintao, who is the current president of The People's Republic of China adds 2 to 3 missiles every week to the stash of missiles that face Taiwan right across the strait".
"Concerning the current number of 784 missiles that are aimed and targeted at Taiwan, we don't say anything about that change in the status quo. In the last five years there have been eleven dress rehearsals for the amphibious invasion of Taiwan--eleven of them!"
"The last one was just a couple of months ago in coordination, not so incidentally, with Russia. Seven Hundred planes were used and 375,000 troops, and those 375,000 troops are permanently stationed right opposite Taiwan".
"The anti-secession law was passed by The People's National Congress of China last March 14. The heart of that anti-secession law is that China will use non-peaceful means should Taiwan claim formal independence".
"There is no question in my mind that we veered towards The People's Republic of China and we condemn Taiwan for using democratic processes as to what they will do. The anti-secession law was hardly democratic. It was the National People's Congress, a one party system and the vote was 2,896 to zero, two abstentions, no democratic process at all".
"The world sees this and they correctly assume, and the chiefs of state of other nations correctly assume that there is a tremendously big exception to our pursuit of liberty around the world".
Professor Robert Kaufman, Pepperdine:
Robert Kaufman is Professor of Public Policy at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy. He is the author of Henry M. Jackson: A Life in Politics and earned his Ph.D. in International Relations from Columbia University as well as a J. D. from Georgetown University. Below are Professor Kaufman's comments.
"I believe that the United States has a vital, moral and geopolitical interest in a free and democratic Taiwan. The fundamental issue that is essential for discussing this is one's view on the rise of Chinese power and how best to make that rise that is inevitable head in a constructive rather than a destructive direction. There are two positions on China that lead to very different policy implications on how to deal with American-Taiwan relations".
"One view, associated with Robert Ross and Avery Goldstein of the University of Pennsylvania is that China is essentially a satisfied status quo, a typical great power in the international system with whom the United States can do business at tolerable costs and risks".
"The other view is represented by Arthur Waldren, professor at the University of Pennsylvania, who argues that China is not a traditional nation state but an imperial power. Ironically, both sides of this debate invoke Germany prior to World War I as their model".
"I am almost identical in my approach to Arthur Waldren who believes that China has hegemonic aspirations in East Asia that can only be dealt with by a policy of containment with a democratic alliance system where India and Japan are lynch pins. China needs containment because East Asia will be in the twenty first century what Europe was for the twentieth, the most important geopolitical region in the world".
"Just as the United States could not safely tolerate Germany or the Soviet Union dominating Europe we cannot tolerate Chinese hegemony in East Asia that would be inimicable to America's moral and geopolitical interests. I believe that the Chinese are aspiring to such hegemony but there is no perfect historical analog to try to capture".
"China today is not the Soviet Union of the cold war, and it is certainly not Nazi Germany. The vast although imprecise analog is Kaiser Wilhelm's Germany before 1914, a Germany with ambitions that can be deterred".
"Taiwan is essential to American strategy in this regard. No legitimate country in East Asia would want China to dominate Taiwan and have control of vital straits that could choke the oil supply of East Asia".
"No American government can be indifferent to the fate of democracy on Taiwan and not only because Taiwan is an example to the rest of East Asia in a repudiation of the current Chinese regime but also it would be fundamentally inconsistent with the Bush doctrine worldwide".
"At this current point in time it would be moral and geopolitical disaster inconsistent with the fundamental tenants of the Bush doctrine to appease a brutal dictatorship in China that has regional hegemonic aspirations at the expense of the democratic and free people on the island of Taiwan".
Feeds