China/Taiwan Kevin Rudd - Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Security

Radio Interview with Geraldine Doogue

Transcript - Sunday Night Profile - 19 July 2004

E & OE

DOOGUE: Kevin Rudd, Welcome to Sunday Profile

RUDD:    It’s good to be with you

DOOGUE: You’ve just returned from China and were clearly troubled by some of the attitudes you found there, why so?

RUDD:    I’ve looked at the China – Taiwan phenomenon for a long long time, both, and I used to be a diplomat. More recently, since I’ve been in this business, and I haven’t seen it as quite, I haven’t seen it quite as tense as this since the mid –90’s when we had the Taiwan Straits Crisis, the missile firing crisis. I think it’s as been now as it’s been in the decade. And I am concerned about where it rolls onto in the future. If you ask me why I think that, it’s simply the tenor, tone, content of conversations with Chinese ministers that I had. But also, friends that I got in Beijing who are not directly responsible for foreign policy, but are part of the broader political establishment in China, all of whom were reflecting to me a general view that Chen Shui-bian, the recently re-elected president of Taiwan may well take a step too far, as far as the formal proclamation of Taiwan’s independence is concerned.

DOOGUE: Was there one thing that someone said that particularly triggered alarm bells for you?

RUDD:    There was. There was a meeting I had with a senior Chinese leader who used this phrase, “with Chen Shui-bian the president of Taiwan, we have studied him, we have studied his words, we’ve observed his actions and we’ve done so for the last four years, we’ve now concluded that this individual is committed to taking Taiwan in the direction of independence, and formal separation from China. And for those reasons we’ve now decided that we need a different approach to this man”. That is probably the sharpest way in which their analysis of Taiwanese domestic politics has been put to me in the many times I’ve been back to Beijing in recent years.

DOOGUE: Do they feel there’s something about this man’s personality that they simply can’t deal with?

RUDD:    I think, in their analysis of Chen Shui-bian, they believe that Chen is a person who is deeply personally, politically and psychologically committed to an independent Republic of Taiwan, that’s their analytical conclusion. And their view, if I was trying to characterise it is that this individual step by step, by one means or another, by formal steps, by informal steps will always be pushing the envelope in terms of taking Taiwan in that direction. Of course, as your listeners would know, this is the redline issue for the Chinese leadership. When it comes to “the unity of the motherland”, it’s not just the rhetoric of the one China principle that people are concerned about, it’s actually quite deep emotional, psychological and political within the Chinese leadership as well. And across all groups within that leadership. Allowing Taiwan to slide away into a formally independent Taiwan is something which is unconscionable for them, in terms of the political tradition they come from.

DOOGUE: So it taps this Achilles heel chaos question in China and can the centre hold and all of that?

RUDD:    In part, and there is a grave concern on the part of anyone running China at anytime in it’s history, there’s a Chinese expression, which is this, it’s called Gao Wan , two words, and Gao Wan means to create chaos and within Chinese political history, anyone who has allowed Wan , ‘chaos’ to happen, is written up in history as a very very bad leader indeed. The good leaders are those who preserve, not just the unity of the empire or the country, depending on what period you’re looking at, but also maintain it in reasonable order. So there are these two factors at play, as I said, quite apart form the formal international legal debates of the present in terms of Taiwan’s proper status.

DOOGUE: So Kevin Rudd, Chen Shui-bian is of this Chinese tradition himself, like, what’s motivating him to behave in this way?

RUDD:    Well, Chen comes from a side of Chinese politics, The Democratic Progress Party which, for a long long time has been formally committed to Taiwan’s independence. Remember, up until the 90’s, early 90’s, Taiwan was not a functioning democracy and the Democratic Progress Party was, at best, an unofficial movement, or at times, an outlawed movement. And many of the historical activists had been imprisoned. Chen’s own historical experience within Taiwanese domestic politics has been deeply oppositionist towards the ruling KMT authority within Taiwan, since Chiang Kai-Shek fled in 49 through until the 90’s. His own wife, suffered as a result of what’s believed to have been a political attack on him and her through her, when she was run-over by a car and, is in a wheelchair to this day. This person’s deep personal political experiences have therefore been shaped around the political movement within Taiwan, which has been oppositionist to the ruling KMT orthodoxy in Taiwan. Um, firmly committed to the independents cause from the beginning and reinforced by intense personal political experience.

DOOGUE: Well given all that, what are the responsibilities of other countries watching on, first the US and then us?

RUDD:    Well, to take my previous point just one step further, part of the challenge in Taiwan has been by the sheer vibrancy of the Taiwanese democracy which has emerged in the 1990’s. It’s a very vibrant democracy. In many respects, the government in Beijing preferred the status quo anti. That is, the previous KMT government of Taiwan which still adhered to the theory of the one China policy. In other words, there was one China, Taiwan was a province of China, and, the only difference was whether the legitimate government of China was the KMT government, led by Chiang Kai-Shek and his successors, or whether it was the communist government led by Mao Tse Tung and his successors. When I studied in Taiwan as a student, the, the fiction maintained then, this was in the late 70’s, early 80’s was that the capital of China still was Nanking. Because, when Chiang Kai-Shek fled across the Taiwan straits in 49 at the end of the Chinese civil war, the formal capital of Republican China was Nanking and they still referred to the Nanking government. Now, all that historical fiction if you like has been rolled away. And now, with the functioning Taiwanese democracy we have Chen Shui-bian opposition party, The Democratic Progress Party now on two occasions successful at the presidential level, which is what we now confront. And I’m sorry for saying all of that, but, in answer to your question, but it does, contextualise the challenge which the international community has in dealing with the Taiwanese government which is democratically elected.

DOOGUE: Well the irony, well quite, the irony is, this is in a case where democracy hasn’t produced equilibrium.

RUDD:    Absolutely, and you can see some examples of this elsewhere in the world since democracies have emerged in Eastern Europe as well, former Eastern Europe. Now in terms of dealing though with the Taiwanese democracy, the Taiwanese domestic public opinion according to opinion polls basically falls into three directions. There are a substantial group of people who want independence, there’s a much larger group of people who simply want the status quo and there is a small group of people who want some form of political accommodation with China. And, here I’m publishing published opinion poll surveys within Taiwan itself. What do we do about that?

I think the time has come for the international community including Australia, to level with our friends in Taiwan, whereas it’s been fantastic for them to develop a functioning democracy, and it’s been great to see Taiwan become a modern economy with rapidly and radically improved living standards for its 23 million people, when it comes to a formal declaration of independence of steps in that direction…we do not think it is, good for the people of Taiwan, good for the people on the mainland or good for this region, including Australia, for that step to be taken when a high risk of the consequence of it would be war within our region. We need to start saying that directly and publicly to the Taiwanese government.

DOOGUE: Two things. Would we have any say? And is war really a possibility?

RUDD:    On the question of whether we’d have any sway, I think there are some in Taiwan who believe that if Taiwan as a functioning democracy declared its independence, that the rest of the international community would automatically put its hand up and say, “well thanks, that’s terrific, another state has joined the international community of democratic states, and we will recognise it”. I think we’ve got a responsibility in the collective west and certainly form the point of view of Australia and the United States to make it very clear that we will not do that. Because we are bound by the terms of our treaty of recognition of the PRC in 1972, which explicitly accepted Taiwan as a province of China.

DOOGUE: This is the China, the one China policy

RUDD:    The one China policy which isn’t just a mantra, it is actually anchored in our international treaty obligations which we undertook in the recognition communiqué of 1972. And other governments around the world have done the same. So, I think in terms of letting Taiwanese domestic public opinion know that if you went down the independence road, there should not be any automatic expectation that the rest of the world is going to rise up in applause spontaneously and recognise “an new Republic of Taiwan”.

DOOGUE: But would we be repudiating it?

RUDD:    Repudiating any such unilateral declaration, well, I think, when you look at the text of our obligations, which we took on as a nation, not as an individual government in 1972, and all other governments recognising Beijing have done the same, we have a formal requirement to adhere to the obligations we took on at that time, which is to accept Beijing and the PRC as the legitimate government of all China. I think that would be what would govern our attitude at the time as well. The flip side of all this, goes to your second question, the possibility of war. It’s very  important for people in political life not to be loose in their remarks on serious questions of the possibility of war, so I’m careful with what I say here. But having been to Beijing most recently and having travelled to Beijing a couple of times each year for the last umpteen years, and having done the same in previous years in Taiwan. I am deeply concerned about the possibility of armed conflict. Do I regard it as a probability, and inevitability? No. Do I regard it as a distinct possibility? Yes. If this is not properly handled now, and part of handling it properly, lies in an intelligent response to our friends in Taipei about the consequences of embracing the independence option.

DOOGUE: More of a preference to do that, than actually trying to somehow massage views in Beijing?

RUDD:    Well, effective diplomacy is usually the sound of two hands clapping, not just one. Saying these things to the authorities in Taipei is important. Urging our friends in Beijing to exercise restraint is also important and I’ve been in the business of doing that as well. But, you’ve got to be realistic about this for the reasons I outlined before. If I was to somehow suggest to your listeners that, don’t worry, the level of cross straight communications, now, between Taiwan and China. The Chinese mainland is now such on the economic front that all these factors would act against China ever contemplating the military option. If I was to leave your listeners with the impression that therefore those economic arguments would cancel out any Chinese planning predisposition to go down the military road in response to a Taiwanese UDI, unilateral declaration of independence, then I think that would be quite wrong. I think, the power the potency, the depth and the breadth of Chinese domestic political opinion on this, within the Chinese communist party and all groups within it reformist and conservative is such that you are looking at a strong possibility of armed conflict under those circumstances.

DOOGUE: Kevin Rudd is my guest on Sunday Profile, the shadow foreign affairs spokesmen. Just, let’s live with that a bit though, if there was, god forbid, some form of invasion by the Peoples Republic of China of Taiwan, would this ‘one China policy’ mean we had to support that invasion?

RUDD:    Well, any invasion by, using armed force would be something deeply disturbing to any Australian government, Labor or Conservative. And we would have grave concerns, grave concerns about China resorting to that course of action. But, I’ve got to say, the immediate and practical challenge, rather than talking about the hypotheticals which could arise at that time is, what do we as an international community and Australian political and foreign policy community do now to prevent this scenario from unfolding? That is what I regard as the practical challenge of statesmanship right now. It’s for those sort for reasons that I’m starting to speak out on this more in the last few weeks because I’m, to be frank Geraldine, just deeply worried about all of this.

DOOGUE: So if you were, let me ask you practically then, say you were elected, like Labor was elected, what would you a s a Foreign Minister do first about this most concerning issue?

RUDD:    I think the responsibility I’ve got now as an alternative Foreign Minister and as a Foreign Minister if we win this election, is to speak directly to our friends in Taiwan. I started this last weekend, the Taiwanese representative in Australia who was a fellow I got to know quite well in recent times I simply levelled with him in public forum and said this is not helpful for regional security, it’s not helpful for the people of Taiwan, it’s not helpful for the people in China, it’s not helpful for the Australian people. Nobody is this neighbourhood wants there to be war, I mean this region has been freed by and large from the scourge of large scale war for a quarter of a century or more, since Indo-China, I don’t think the reason wants to contemplate that possibility again. So, putting that message directly to our friends in Taiwan, is really important and to have it carried within the Taiwanese domestic media given that Taiwan is a democracy, they need to know where other democracies stand on this question.

DOOGUE: What do you think is the chance of Taiwan for instance, taking the Hong Kong path, in effect trying to have a one country, two systems approach?

RUDD:    Well I was having a bite with a few mates in Beijing recently and we were talking about one country, three systems and whether that would work, because if you look at the text of China’s offer to Taiwan, it goes further than what was offered Hong Kong because it allows Taiwan to maintain it’s own armed forces, for example. What that would mean in practice is another thing altogether. But, plainly Beijing is exploring options about one country, two systems and how it would apply to Taiwan’s circumstances, this does not have any particular appeal to people in Taiwan at all. And I think it would be rejected by an overwhelming majority of the Taiwanese people if it were put to any democratic ballot at present, but that’s a matter for the Taiwanese people of course.

DOOGUE: So there’s been this growing aspiration on the part of the Taiwanese people themselves, they’re starting to tilt at a windmill you think is most unwise but the sound of it?

RUDD:    I think so, there’s a level of, you could almost say naivety on the part of certain people in the Taiwanese political process about what Beijing might do under these circumstances. If you look at the extent of China’s military preparation for the possibility of armed conflict from Taiwan, they are formidable and concerning. And these are matters we also raise with the Chinese in terms of the contribution of those preparations to overall regional stability.

DOOGUE: But even as the Olympics approach Kevin, you think that they will?

RUDD:    Well, the view in Taiwan, and this is again why I’m raising these matters Geraldine, the view in Taiwan is that China is so attached to the international PR coup that the 2008 Olympics represent that they would under no circumstances contemplate the possibility of any military action against Taiwan. I think this is foolish optimism on the part of those who hold that view within Taiwan. The reason I say that is that is that it doesn’t take due regard to the fact that within the Chinese leadership there are no votes in terms of being seen to be soft on Taiwan on a core question of Taiwan moving towards a formal declaration of independence.

DOOGUE: But, and I don’t think this is wildly theoretical - even at the risk of losing the Olympics?

RUDD:    Well, again we move off into hypothetical land. But what I’m trying to flag to your listeners and the Australian government and the broader international community is how serious this thing is becoming. And if there is a view that the Beijing Olympics of itself would prevent China from responding militarily to a Taiwanese declaration of independence or some such action I think that is undue optimism.

DOOGUE: Just before I leave this have you met President Chen?

RUDD:    Yeah a few times, he used to be Mayor of Taipei before he headed off for the Presidency. I met him several times when he was Mayor of Taipei because he was a very interesting DPP politician on the make.

Well, there’s a bit of a handicap in dealing with President Chen in my current capacity as a Foreign Minister, if we become government at the end of the year – we don’t deal with the President of Taiwan or their Foreign Ministers or Defence Ministers – it is part of the One China policy so we’re a bit hamstrung. But there are other ways you can get messages through to the Taiwanese government. They have an unofficial representative in Australia and messages can be communicated at that level. Can we deal with President Chen? Let’s see. He’s an interesting kettle of fish.

DOOGUE: I just also wondered about your verdict on China’s progress towards a modern plural state. For instance, the continuing detention and interrogation of the 72 year old military doctor who exposed China’s cover-up of SARS last year is a very interesting illustration it seems of how far China has yet to travel. His wife’s been released but he’s apparently still detained.

RUDD:    On the particular case Geraldine I don’t know I’ll try and find out. On the broader point about the state of democratisation or human rights evolution within China itself plainly there are still massive problems on this front.   I don’t pretend either to your audience or to anyone else to gild the lily that this place has become a functioning liberal democracy, it hasn’t.  China is still a one party state. The big point though about China’s political evolution in the last 25 years is that has become broadly a more tolerant one party state than it was.

If you look at the depth and breadth of political opinion in China as expressed through the newspapers, through dissenting literature, dissenting journals, if you look at the role played by the National Peoples’ Congress these days which is China’s equivalent of a Parliament which is not democratically elected, increasingly you see an expression of voices in Chinese politics beyond the monolithic Chinese Communist Party.  It is a different China from the one I started studying 25 years ago. 

DOOGUE: Look Kevin, you’re obviously fascinated with this place.  Where did the fascination start?

RUDD:    Well it’s a big place. Anyone who is interested in the world can’t ignore China.

DOOGUE: But you learned Mandarin, a lot of us don’t go quite that far.

RUDD:   We’ve all got our perversities haven’t we Geraldine I’m sure you’ve got some as well. I grew up in the Queensland country my existential conversation as a kid way, I grew up on a farm and my father said to me when I was about 10 – “Kev have you made up your mind what you are going to do in life?”. Which to a 10-year old is a fairly confronting question.  “There are two great choices that you face”. I said Dad what are they? He said “Is it going to be beef or is it going to be dairy?” China struck me as the third way. We had a book on Chinese archaeology and I would squirrel myself away under a tree and have a read while I supposed be getting the cows. I think that’s how it all started. And I was inspired as a kid by Gough. And I thought this country is going to have a huge impact on us somehow some way so I should try and learn the language which is what I did.

DOOGUE: What is, finally, the greatest myth you think we hold about it?  China’s emerging as this powerhouse, all these great metaphors are used.  But I sense you both hope for it and you’re remarkably clear-eyed about it - you’re not romantic really about China are you?

RUDD:    No, I’m not romantic, but I’m on balance an optimist about China by which I mean that if you look at the great trend line of history and this country emerging from a horrible period of foreign occupation from the Opium Wars to the end of the Japanese occupation after the last war, more than a hundred years and you see the convulsions of its political transformation from the ‘40s on – the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution and all the disasters that have happened, you’ve got to say that this country is trending right at last.   Both in terms of allowing a better living standard for a quarter of humanity and allowing a greater level of political expression than it has in least in the last quarter century

But I’m clear-eyed in the sense that as far as China’s future role in the world is concerned and the region when it becomes a great power, and I believe it will, the script as to how China will behave in the world hasn’t been written yet. They themselves haven’t worked this out because the previous 150 years of Chinese history have been focussed on their domestic concerns.

This is a script we need to work with China in developing.  Part of what I want to do as a Labor Foreign Minister is with our friends in Beijing, and I’ve got a few, is to sit down and to the extent that we can, not overstating our role at all, encourage China in the direction of believing that its future both in security policy and economic policy and more broadly environmental policy as well, see the merits in working within the constraints of an international rules based system, the United Nations and other organisations.Because that way China’s emergence as a great power can be managed. 

One of the reasons I’ve been concerned about the Iraq war is that I get worried about the United States and John Winston Howard here at home thinking it is very clever and very smart to thumb your nose at the United Nations and the United Nations Security Council, the U.N Charter. Whatever the imperfections at least it is a bunch of rules which the world community put together half a century ago  – and some rules are better than none.

DOOGUE: Kevin Rudd thanks for your time.

Ends