| Subjects: |
- Representative office in Hong Kong; Allegation of Lin’s link with CIA; cabinet lineup.
|
MAC Vice Chairman Chong-Pin Lin
at the April 7, 2000 Press Conference
Questions and Answers:
Q. Chung Hwa Travel Services, the government's representative office in Hong Kong, was alleged of being an illegal agency there. What is your view?
A. Regarding the registration issue of the Chung Hwa Travel Services, Vice Chairman Cheng An-kuo already gave an explanation. The agency has been operating in its current situation for a long time, with a primary function of promoting Taiwan-Hong Kong relations. Other related issues are being negotiated.
Q. What is your comment on the description of your ties with Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that appeared yesterday in the Tomorrow Times?
A. I agree with Chairman Su Chi's comments and views. Some of the wording was quite like that of Mr. Wang Daohan (Chairman of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits). But others looked a bit exaggerated with washed-down wordings. I have three comments on this piece of news. First, it is understandable that Mr. Wang is in a delicate situation. A person with wisdom, experience, and status as Mr. Wang, still has to make the comments like this. The circumstance he is in is quite understandable. Based upon our information, Mr. Wang's opinions seem to carry dwindling weight these days.
Mainland China's operation of Taiwan affairs can be categorized roughly into two lines – the soft line and the hard line. The soft line is headed with Mr. Wang, who seems to be in an usual situation. That is the reason why I feel empathetic for him. Second, his comments reflected the Mainland's domestic situation, which means that its social instability did not change for the better. Economically, the uncertainties still linger, triggering political leaders to split into different views on how to handle the domestic issues. The policy debate will set the stage for future political struggle. Third, Mainland China intends to split Taiwan society and the people. For example, the 14th point in the alleged statement by Mr. Wang mentioned that "We should use Taiwan visitors, the media, and the Internet. We must differentiate the visitors. Whoever can be roped in, we should draw him to our side, and whoever can be disunited, we will split." Pertinent information has indicated that Beijing authorities have been trying to split us. They hope to launch the psychological warfare to spread information in an informal way, which they can later deny.
Regarding critiques about me, I have seven points to make, including five rebutting questions and two footnotes.
Five rebutting questions;
1. The nature of the CIA
I spent 29 years in North America for my graduate studies and for work. During that period, I never applied for U.S. citizenship, neither did I choose an Anglishzed name. I always published my articles in newspapers or journals under my Chinese name, Chong-Pin Lin. My academic focus on the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and the Taiwan Strait situation did not conform with the mainstream, and my opinions were considered contrarian to the CIA's judgements. So, if the CIA tried to recruit someone who lacked flexibility, how can the CIA still be the CIA?
2. My personal trait
I have never joined any political party at home or abroad. If I joined the highly disciplined CIA, how can I still be Chong-Pin Lin?
3. The status of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
I worked at AEI for eight years. Among my colleagues were retired ambassadors and cabinet-level officials. If an AEI scholar still preferred to join CIA as an informant, how can AEI still be regarded AEI?
4. Georgetown University
I taught at Georgetown University, including two years as chair professor. If a professor at Georgetown University wanted to secretly work for the CIA, how can Georgetown University still be credited Georgetown University?
5. Weight of the New York Times
I went abroad when I was 24. Three years later, I obtained my master's degree in geology. I spent all my time between age of 27 and 37 doing mining and mineral exploration. When I was 37, I enrolled at Georgetown University, and got my doctoral degree when I was 45. One year later, my book was published and the New York Times ran my op-ed. So, if a person whose articles can be published in the New York Times still wanted to secretly work for the CIA, how can the New York Times still be the New York Times?
I have two footnotes to add. First, I worked with (former U.S.) Ambassador James Lilley (to the People's Republic of China). In my fifth year with AEI, Ambassador Lilley joined AEI. So, it was not because I knew Mr. Lilley that I got in AEI, it was rather because I had been at AEI so I met Amb. Lilley.
Second, the former MAC Chairman Dr. Chang King-yuh recruited me. Dr. Chang used to be with the Institute of International Relations of National Chengchi University (before he became the chairman), so he was knew about AEI and Georgetown University. He thus became aware of my work.
Q. You mentioned that some wording seemed to be Mr. Wang's, some was washed-down. Can you be more specific about which sentences are his, and which are those that are washed-down?
A. I was quoting the comments from Chairman Su. The chairman pointed out that some terse sentences, paraphrases, and views on world developments are quite like Mr. Wang’s. However, some details seemed to be unbelievably far from the reality in Taiwan. If the PRC continues to jump to conclusions based upon partial information on Taiwan, it will become increasingly loosing sight of our development. This will not benefit cross-strait relations.
Q. The incoming government's cabinet is still being formed, and it has been highly speculated that you will be a cabinet minister. If president-elect
Chen Shui-bian asks you to be a cabinet member, what will be your intent?
A. A few friends in the media asked me this question two weeks ago. After
March 18, many friends (in the media and various political parties) asked me a lot about my future plan. Did any political leader ever ask me in a formal way? So far, no.
Friends who cared about me threw a question at me. "Your plan to write books is for yourself. However, the nation is having its first-ever transfer to a new ruling political party, and the cross-strait situation is at a critical stage. Don't you think you should accept the nation's demand and give the needs of society top priority?" Indeed, I do think so. In such a circumstance, any one who can contribute his expertise or services should do so, no matter whether he serves in the government, in the private sector, or belongs to the academic community.
Q. If "one China" is a subject on the agenda (for cross-strait talks), will this be positive for interactions on cross-strait relations?
A. I do not have the capacity to comment on major policies. The new government taking office on May 20 shall answer this.
Q. You said there was no formal inquiry. Was there any informal inquiry? Whose inquiries are considered informal?
A. Informal inquiry refers to those made by journalists, representatives of political parties, or friends. Some of them are senior members of the Democratic Progressive Party, whose names I am afraid I cannot reveal.
Q. If you can contribute to the country, you are not against becoming a cabinet member. Is this correct?
A. I think position is not that important. Service is more important. I can serve the country even if I work for the private sector.
Q. You said you can provide your services or expertise no matter which position you are in. Do you prefer cross-strait affairs or military research, which is your academic specialty?
A. I personally prefer research. I hope I can continue my research work, including that on the Mainland situation, the PLA, and military strategy. As for cross-strait affairs, I learned a lot during the past four years, and I am equally willing to contribute what I know. As for international affairs, I spent 29 years in the United States, so I have some humble opinions that I can offer.
Q. You work for the KMT government as an independent. You might work for the DPP government two months later. Does this change affect your political identification?
A. My identification is to serve the political interests of the Republic of China and its people.
Q. Do you agree with the concept of Taiwan independence?
A. Presently, I do not support Taiwan independence. The results from public opinion surveys and current development indicate that the "status quo" is best. What will be the future shall be decided by generations to come. From a historical angle, unification or independence is not the issue. History tells us that the integration or division of nations and regions is always dynamic. Any fixed status is against the rule of history.