Mainland Affairs Council

Subjects:

Taiwan's presidential election; PRC's information war; definition for the cross-strait ties.

His Report:

While waves of cold fronts raid, the presidential campaign is heating up. Our people are highly concerned of the election and the public atmosphere is warming up, which is in sharp contrast to the cold weather. Through popular elections, Taiwan can rejuvenate itself. This attests the value of democracy. It can be described as: "Cold fronts raiding without an end, campaigns escalating on the land, political atmosphere getting the upper hand, only democracy can truly withstand."

Democracy is what the government means to safeguard in its Mainland policy. The government hopes that our democratic election can become a paradigm for the PRC so that Mainland Chinese can enjoy, as Taiwan people do, the rights to freely elect their leaders and form their government.

Regarding the views on cross-strait issues by a few presidential candidates, MAC welcomes these opinions because cross-strait affairs and the government's Mainland policy has become a subject high on the political agenda. MAC wishes to emphasize that the government's Mainland policy is the only policy that has been empirically tested. It is also the only one to safeguard the national security and dignity. The feasibility of other presidential candidates' policies remains untested.

Questions and Answers:

Presidential Election is Taiwan's Own Business

Q. PRC Vice Premier Qian Qichen said that Beijing has prepared 18 sets of countermeasures for Taiwan's presidential election. What is MAC's view on this?

A. The election is Taiwan's domestic affair. It has nothing to do with Mainland China. The PRC should respect our democratic system. The ROC government hopes the PRC will:

• (1) Understand Taiwan's public opinion,
• (2) Understand that a popularly elected leader cannot betray public opinion,
• (3) Realize that whether Mainland China has goodwill toward Taiwan will be reflected in public opinion, and
• (4) Focus on friendly interaction between the two sides, and refrain from repeating slogans or making any move detrimental to cross-strait relations.

The government further hopes Mainland China can comprehend that democracy is hard-won, valuable, and the best system. It is a shame that under the PRC's political system, Mainland Chinese might not be able to hear our voice and opinions.

Mainland's Information Warfare: Difficulties & Advantages

Q. According to wire service reports, Mainland China is considering banning the Microsoft 2000 operating system and using instead the Chinese-developed Linux system due to the fear that its entire computer system could be attacked by virus from the United States in a information warfare. What is your view on this?

A. I am not clear about the details of the report; however, I am not surprised. What we know about information warfare involves keen competition in technology. Mainland China began in March 1986, or three years after the U.S. embarked on its star war plan, to commit itself to catching up with the American technology (in information warfare). We knew about this development. Mainland China has difficulties and advantages. Its difficulties are as follows: First, its technology is not on a par with other scientifically advanced countries. Second, competition within this field is very intense. Though Mainland China has made some advancement, others are moving fast, too. Third, its political system does not encourage competition as democracies do, which restricts technological breakthroughs.

Mainland China has advantages, though. First, along with growing economic strength is its rising military expenditure. Second, it gives top priority to the technology research for information warfare. Third, it has a special team to carry on the R&D, starting from the 1950s to the present day, without any interruption. Fourth, the PRC has the assistance of at least 1,500 Russian scientists. Fifth, not being a democracy, without a powerful legislature and freedom of speech, the government can do whatever it wants free from the oversight from the general public. Its development deserves special attention. The government will keep watching these developments.

Beijing's Timetable is Just Wishful Thinking

Q. In the PRC National Conference of Directors of Taiwan Affairs Office yesterday, participants agreed with the urgency of cross-strait issues, though not setting a timetable for unification. They consider that March to May will be the crucial period for the two sides. What is the government's view on this?

A. The timetable or urgency reflects to a certain degree Mainland China's domestic situation. When its domestic situation is stable or Mainland authorities have self-confidence, they will not set a timetable. Failing to fulfill the timetable will be disadvantageous, and not favorable to itself. The latest developments on the Mainland, including social, economic, and even political events, have made them become tougher and more rigid with regard to Taiwan or even other countries. We wish to remind the general public that the PRC's timetable is just wishful thinking. The cross-strait issues must be resolved through bilateral negotiations and in peaceful way, which will move according to the global trend and serve the best interests of people of the two sides. If Mainland Chinese leaders are forward-looking or intelligent, they will realize that this is the best path.

"Special State-to-state Relationship" Best Defines the Cross-strait Status

Q. The opposition camps introduce various statements on their cross-strait positions. Does MAC find any one of these inspiring?

A. Since the introduction of "special state-to-state relationship" on July 9, at least 14 opinion polls were conducted between July 10 and September 15. These opinion polls show the same thing, those in favor of the statement far outnumber those not in favor and those making no comment. Some of the statements (by other candidates), in our view, are either slogans only, or wishful expectation that Mainland China might cooperate.

Hence, MAC still thinks that "special state-to-state relationship" can best define the political and legal status in cross-strait relations. The word "special" carries three-fold meanings that can be viewed from the past, the present, and the future. For "the past," the statement means that the two sides have the same cultural and ethnic origin, therefore "special" feelings. For "the present," the two sides have ever-growing economic, people-to-people, and social exchanges, something resembling what exists between South and North Korea. For the future, the two sides are seeking an unified China, but we hope that the unified China is democratic, free, and enjoys equal prosperity. Hence, the word "special" has rich implications and pragmatically matches the status.

"Quasi-international Relations" a Contradiction Needs to be Defined

Q. What is the difference between "special state-to-state relationship" and "quasi-international relations" (proposed by another candidate)?

A. There was a phrase that came before "quasi-international relations," that was, "mutually exclusive sovereignty." In our view, the presidential candidate introduced "quasi-international relations" without further definition. It needs to be defined. Second, the phrase "mutually exclusive sovereignty" should mean that "you have no sovereignty over ours, and vice versa." His Chinese translation, "relative sovereignty," means just the opposite, that is, you have sovereignty over us, and vice versa. The contradiction needs further interpretation. Third, "quasi-international relations," in the view of many scholars, is a rollback of "special state-to-state relationship." The reason lies in the word "quasi." Compared with "state," "quasi-state" is a step backward.