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 is scheduled to be published the last week of January, 2007.
Bruce continues answering questions posed by The Epoch Times.
ET: Let's talk about leadership. Is it not true that the Soviet Union and its communism folded primarily due to Ronald Reagan's courage and determination to do the right thing?
BH: Yes, I would certainly agree with that. There were a number of things that happened, fortunately at the same time. We had President Reagan, Great Britain had Prime Minister Thatcher. We had Pope John Paul II, and we had Lech Walesa, who later became the President of Poland. We had a lot of elements that were working. President Reagan was certainly the foundation in terms of what became the end of the Soviet Union, principally by insisting that we were going to go ahead with the Strategic Defense Initiative. It's a strange thing but many foreign leaders really don't know how our government works, although they all pretend they do: he wasn't going to get his Strategic Defense Initiative because the congress wasn't going to give it to him.
But here is our Chief of State, President Reagan, saying he was going to go ahead with it. And the Soviet leaders were scared to death because, as I mentioned earlier, they had everything tied up in their missiles, particularly intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Strategic Defense Initiative could ruin them economically as their missiles could become impotent. And their economy was becoming ruined anyway, but that would really be the capstone. So all of these elements worked together, and I would totally agree with you it was President Reagan. It was a marvelous time in history when we had those people that meant so much: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, the Pope, and Lech Walesa.
ET: But didn't it take a lot of guts for President Reagan to tell them to tear down the wall in Germany?
BH: Of course it did, and every one of his advisors said "don't do it." They had already said, "Don't ever call the Soviet Union and its satellites the Evil Empire!" Then when he went to Berlin they said, "Don't say 'Tear down this wall!'" He did it anyway. The same people who I criticize in the State Department for having this mushy policy towards China, were the ones who told President Reagan not to make his statement regarding the Berlin Wall.
By giving credit to Thatcher, the Pope, Walesa, I am not in any way diminishing the credit given to President Reagan. Without him it would not have happened. I am just saying he happily had assistance or at least encouragement from very great people.
The Tank Man: Wang Wei-lin
And by the way, I would add one other name to the names that I just mentioned: it is Wang Wei-lin, who is the one that faced the tanks in Tiananmen Square. Let me just preface this by saying Jiang Zemin told President Clinton that he did not know who the man was and did not know what happened to him. Well, I know who he was and what happened to him, because escapees told me in Hong Kong when I went there in 1989 shortly after the massacre. Any number of refugees who didn't know each other told me who he was and told me that he was executed and told me the day of his execution.
The reason I said that his name should be added to Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, the Pope, and Lech Walesa, is because of this: I went to the dying Soviet Union before it did die but at the time it was obviously on its last legs. There were people going from East Germany to other countries in Eastern Europe and from those countries into West Germany, and I was generally praising people who did this, saying, "You are very brave in doing this."
And I don't know how many times I got the answer, and I am paraphrasing, "if that Chinese boy could stand in front of the tanks, we could do this." What he was trying to do was to have an effect on China. He was just a kid and obviously coming from school with a knapsack. He did not start out the day thinking he was going to be a hero or that he would be executed.
"…What Wang Wei-lin [Tank Man] did was to help change the Soviet Union"
He was a young man who would have loved to have changed China. He did not change China, but what Wang Wei-lin did was to help change the Soviet Union. It is an amazing thing about how one person could have such an effect. Few even know what he looked like because the pictures that were taken were all from behind and looking down at the avenue. He was an amazing young man.
ET: Where does the leadership need to come from today to make positive change in Communist China?
BH: I don't think it is as dependent on President Bush as it is the leadership of Taiwan. President Bush calls for a status quo and he doesn't want anything to change. And I know why. Our military is spread very thin. We have to win the war against Islamic terrorism because if we don't, and if we lose, think about what losing means. I believe it would mean the end of the United States and the end of modern civilization. What the Islamic fanatics want is a government similar to what they had in Afghanistan with the Taliban and similar to what they had in Sadam Hussein's Iraq. We have to win. So I believe what President Bush wants is for every other possible armed conflict to be -- and I will use the term that I despise – remaining at a status quo.
In other words we don't want Pakistan and India to fight over Kashmir, we don't want Greece and Turkey to get into a conflict over Cyprus, we don't want Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to be in conflict, we want a status quo all over the world right now except in the Mideast. That is where we are going to focus our channels to winning and creating democracies. And this [status quo] would of course apply to China and Taiwan. So I understand what he is doing. At the same time, Hu Jintao [President of the People's Republic of China] is taking advantage of this as though he is trying to help us tremendously. He isn't. He is hosting the six power talks with North Korea, acting as though he is attempting to talk North Korea into giving up its nuclear facilities and ambitions. He isn't going to do that. I think President Bush knows he is not going to do that. But what he is doing is postponing almost an inevitable crisis with North Korea because we don't want one now.
These six party talks with North Korea in Beijing will go on and then they will go off. Then they will go on and then off. Well, we act as though we are extremely angry when they go off. I don't think we are angry at all. I think all we want is a postponement and that is what Hu Jintao is providing for us. But by the same token I think he wants some reciprocity of policy. And by that I mean that he wants President Bush to be reciprocal in not giving any weight to Taiwan. He would hope that we ignore the whole business and let evolution take its place. Incidentally that phrase is almost what the President has said. He doesn't use the term evolution but that the two parties will settle it between themselves and it will all take care of itself. I am paraphrasing, but that is close to his words.
"He [President Chen] acts as though you can run all over him"
I do think, however, that it's President Chen of Taiwan who is the major key in this. At times, he acts as though you can run all over him. And you can, and that is the shame of it all. Look, our State Department says he has violated the status quo―and so he goes back on what he was going to do. He changes the word, "abolish" from what he was going to do regarding the National Unification Council. He then says that the opposition, meaning the KMT, was going to strike it down anyway, so don't worry about it. When leaders of the KMT and PFP were going to Beijing, at first he almost called them treasonous, then he blessed them and called one of them, James Soong, on the phone and asked him to bring a message to President Hu of China for him. I mean, my God! I know what he is thinking; he is worried about war with the PRC. He is also worried about the reaction of the United States because there is no question that for Taiwan to be militarily equal or superior to the PRC would mean the United States being engaged, since Taiwan by itself is not militarily equal or superior to the PRC. So he is afraid of both the U.S. and the PRC for different reasons, and he tries to walk this middle line. But walking this middle line does not give him respect in Washington.
The State Department knows they can run all over him—and so they do it. And I think what President Chen needs to do is to say that Taiwan can no longer live in fear, and say "We are a democratic nation, we treasure our liberties and will use the democratic processes of referenda to ask our people if we should revise our constitution as they see fit." And I believe that President Bush and the State Department, who have been opposed to such a step, would respect him more and the world would respect him more.
ET: We would respect him more but the U.S. would likely still maintain the Status Quo.
BH: I am not so sure. I don't know if we can. By that I mean, look, if we praise Iraq for going to the polls for a referendum on a constitution, a plebiscite for a constitution, we can't on the other hand say Taiwan that is already a democracy, can't do it. I believe President Chen is making a mistake that, at times, the United States has made. He wants to be liked. But being liked is nothing, you have to be respected. And I don't think there is the respect for President Chen that a president of Taiwan should have. But obviously if Mayor Ma and the KMT get in power it's going to be much worse. Much worse. And remember there will be no incumbent because President Chen can't run again.
ET: When is the Taiwan presidential election?
BH: It will be in 2008. And it could be a very tough one. Policy should be the only thing that matters in that election. Do you remember when President Bush was in Kyoto last November when he made very complimentary remarks about Taiwan's democracy and he also said that Taiwan has created a free and democratic Chinese society? It would be just as outrageous for me to say that the United States has created a free and democratic British society. What he said in that statement―and I know that the statement went through the process that these things go through in Washington D.C.: it goes through the National Security Council staff, through the State Department―and someone put in "Chinese society".
ET: I would agree with you that a true leader needs to emerge in Taiwan for something good to happen there.
BH: I wish it would be President Chen prior to 2008 when, constitutionally, he has to leave office. I am sure he is a very fine man. But he is too vacillating. He vacillates between being courageous one day and timid the next.
ET: Will freedom and democracy win out over totalitarian regimes? Will the people of the world ever be completely free of tyrannical regimes?
"I want Taiwan to be a full fledged nation and its people not to be scared anymore."
BH: Yes, I believe that will happen. I would love to see it. I don't think it will happen in our lifetimes but, on the other hand, who thought we would see the Soviet Union die? But we did. So sometimes those things that you don't think you will see in your lifetime are things you will see in your lifetime. In the long run I am optimistic, but I want the battles to be as few as possible. And first I want the United States to win the war on terrorism, and second, I want Taiwan to be a full fledged nation and its people not to be scared anymore.
ET: Do you see any cracks in the armor of the Chinese regime?
"They [Chinese regime] are masters of putting down demonstrations."
BH: No. Not really. They are masters of putting down demonstrations. You will read about the things that are going on in the rural areas. Well, they always go on in the rural areas. But they always put them down. They are masters at it. The rest of the world just sort of closes its eyes. It's very difficult to fathom since they are continually rewarded because of their economic power that we give them by our own investments and trade.
"There is just no punishment for China's regime"
I remember when everyone was mad at Japan a couple of decades ago because of the trade deficit with them. I don't understand why we are not mad about China. We don't seem to be upset about it. Additionally, they have had such tremendous rewards that they have no reason to say, "We are going to let all the political prisoners out, for example the prisoners from Tiananmen Square who have been incarcerated since 1989. We will no longer violate human rights, and we will dismantle our missiles that are targeted at Taiwan." They are not about to say that with the rewards they are receiving. There is just no punishment for China's regime.
ET: There is a website run by The Epoch Times called in Chinese "Tuidang." Since November, 2004 over 16 million have gone on to this website and renounced their membership in the Chinese Communist party (CCP) and affiliated organizations. Would you consider this a crack in the armor of the CCP?
"But this kind of thing [Communist party renunciations] is terrific.
BH: Gee that is a powerful one. Anything that can bring cracks in the armor is tremendously important. That is wonderful. The battle of information is a real battle. You know what China is trying to do as far as Google and Yahoo and all of the Internet is concerned. But this kind of thing [Communist party renunciations] is terrific. I think that this is absolutely superb. Will that by itself end the dictatorial regime? I don't think so, but it will certainly help. Any crack in the armor that you can make is worth making.
ET: What about the indignation of some members of congress regarding Google, Yahoo, Cisco and other IT Tech companies who act as indirect or direct accomplices in human rights abuses by helping the Chinese regime censor and block access to information? Google has a motto of "Do No Evil" but educated people who know better say that they and others are doing evil in China.
BH: Absolutely, they sure are. The entire congress should be totally opposed to that. I am not saying that Google and Yahoo will obey what the congress is saying. They'll say that they have to obey the laws of the host county—I read their answers. But as a nation and as a government we should be so totally opposed to that, and I would like to hear President Bush make statements against it. Certainly Congress should make a resolution against it and it might have some effect.
ET: The Formosa Foundation in the United States is an organization dedicated to the advancement of human rights, democracy, and the right to self-determination of Taiwan. Amy Lin, their Los Angeles representative, identified three important priorities:
1) Recognize and uphold Taiwan's democracy;
2) Abandon the One China Policy, and
3) Commitment by the U.S. to defend Taiwan.
Could you briefly comment on these priorities for supporting Taiwan?
BH: Of course we should recognize and uphold Taiwan's democracy. As for our defense of Taiwan, the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 gives that guarantee and we must continue to live by it. But let me get to the "One China" policy. It should be abandoned as long as anyone interprets it to mean that Taiwan is part of China – and that is what is believed.
I have no problem in having a "One China" policy as long as we also have a simultaneous "One Taiwan" policy. In short, there is one China and there is one Taiwan. After all, we have a One United Kingdom policy but the United States is not part of it.
"Call it what it is: the Republic of Taiwan."
Now the people of Taiwan live in near diplomatic isolation. Over two centuries ago, we in the United States had Founders who held to the convictions of creating a free nation. The only difference is that Taiwan is struggling not to achieve liberty as a democracy. It already has it. As a threatened democracy, Taiwan's struggle is to retain what it has already achieved.
The world could prove its sense of morality by recognizing Taiwan as Taiwan, and allowing its name to enter the glossary of national sovereignty and international relations. Call it what it is: the Republic of Taiwan.
Feeds