Beyond Formosa Betrayed:
Towards Truth and Reconciliation in Taiwan
On Friday September 25th, the Formosa Foundation joined with FAPA (Formosa Association for Public Affairs) organized a major seminar at the National Press Club in Washington DC. See Program Agenda. Read entire conference Transcript (PDF).
After the introduction and welcome by FAPA President Prof. Bob Yang, the audience viewed a 6-minute showing of “The Making of Formosa Betrayed”, which included scenes from the movie itself and brief interviews with several of the actors as well as the director and producer. Coming to theaters in early 2010, Formosa Betrayed depicts events in the early 1980s which were a critical turning-point in Taiwan’s democratization and its relationship to the United States.
As moderator of the first panel, Gerrit van der Wees showed several Powerpoint slides of the actual events in the late 1970s and early 1980s on which the movie is based: the Kaohsiung Incident of December 1979, the February 1980 murder of the family of Lin Yi-hsiung, the July 1981 murder of Carnegie-Mellon professor Chen Wen-chen, and the October 1984 murder of Chinese-American writer Henry Liu.
Van der Wees then introduced the topic of the first panel: Taiwan’s Transition to Democracy; the History and welcomed the first speaker, Prof. Nancy Tucker of Georgetown University.
Tucker, whose latest book was titled Strait Talk; US-Taiwan Relations and the Crisis with China, set the stage and provided the overall historical backdrop, describing the political environment in Taiwan in the late 1970s and early 1980s--Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger going to China and ROC's expulsion from the UN, which represented a first blow to the international legitimacy of the Kuomintang government.
Tucker described how these developments prompted Chiang Ching-kuo to rethink Taiwan’s international status and to initiate some very preliminary political reforms. However he remained an authoritarian ruler determined to preserve the KMT in power, maintaining the strictures of martial law, and preventing the formation of an opposition political party.
Tucker discussed how the 1977 Chungli Incident and the growing influence of the political opposition prompted Chiang to push for further reforms, but the de-recognition by the US at the end of 1978 and the Kaohsiung Incident of December 1979 slowed down the reform process. However, it picked up pace again in 1981-1984 due to two reasons: 1) with normalization in place and Deng Xiaoping’s open door economic policy, China was less of a threat to Taiwan, and 2) pressure from the American side, which was especially angered at the political murders and the student spying across US campuses. These eventually led to the transition to democracy in the second half of the 1980s.
Fulton Armstrong, staff Senate Foreign Relations Committee, served as foreign affairs aide to Congressman Jim Leach in the early 1980s. He recounted to the audience some of the efforts in the House that took place in the 80's which helped bring about a transition to democracy in Taiwan. Armstrong described how the cases of the murders of the Lin family and of professor Chen Wen-chen provided an opportunity for the US Congress to understand what was wrong in Taiwan, and to take steps to help fix it.
The basic premise was that for Taiwan’s governance, international survival and national identity, it was essential for Taiwan to move away from the old authoritarian regime and move towards human rights and democracy. “That should be plan A, plan B and plan C,” said Armstrong. In discussing the murder cases with the KMT government at the time, members of Congress asked: “how can Taiwan survive international non-recognition if its image is that of an authoritarian, undemocratic, gross violator of human rights?” According to Armstrong, the deaths of the Lin family and of Prof. Chen Wen-chen contributed to the peaceful evolution of Taiwan into a democracy with its own positive image.
Armstrong then turned to the present and said that the continuing poor quality of Taiwan’s democracy and the deep problem with its judiciary are being overshadowed by the mistaken image that the present KMT policies are “solving the Taiwan problem.” He emphasized that from all sides there should be a solid commitment to democracy. This means that the KMT and Beijing cannot pretend that the Taiwanese do not exist and should not have a voice in their future. The 2008 election result is not a mandate for the Ma government to forget that democracy requires close consultation with the people. He also emphasized that secret deals (between the KMT and CCP) without Legislative Yuan approval are not consistent with democracy. Armstrong concluded that human rights and democracy must remain plan A, plan B, and plan C.
The last speaker in the first panel was Thomas G. Hughes, former chief of staff to the late Senator Claiborne Pell (D-RI), who was a driving force in the Senate in support of human rights and democracy in Taiwan. Hughes gave a very moving account of the friendship between two of the main actors in the early 1980s whose work contributed greatly to Taiwan’s transition to democracy: Senator Claiborne Pell and Dr. Mark Chen, who came to the US as a young student studying at the Univ. of Oklahoma, and who returned to Taiwan in the late 1980s to to join the political process.
Hughes described how Pell had become interested in Taiwan in the 1940s when he was part of a US government team preparing for the military occupation of Formosa after World War II. This interest was not restricted to Taiwan, but Pell had a strong affection for small beleaguered states in general: Tibet, Sikkim, Goa, East Timor. Hughes recounted how in the early 1980s, the Reagan administration and the KMT’s Republican supporters in the Senate had very little interest in human rights and democracy in Taiwan, so it fell to Pell as the most prominent Democrat to start voicing his concern, together with the late Senator Ted Kennedy.
Hughes described how Pell had taken the lead on democracy and human rights issues, including the political murders which took place, and also took a longer-term view, outlining a vision for the future, which resulted in a resolution drafted by Pell which included the now famous phrase: “Taiwan’s future should be settled peacefully, free of coercion and in a manner acceptable to the people of Taiwan.” That campaign turned to ending the “black list” which kept Mark Chen and many other pro-democracy activists out of Taiwan. This eventually resulted in the lifting of the black list, after which Dr. Chen returned to Taiwan and rose to become foreign minister in 2004.
Hughes closed with a moving description of the final meeting between Pell and Chen in the Fall of 2004 in Newport, RI, when Chen, then Taiwan’s foreign minister, came to Newport to award Pell – crippled with Parkinson’s disease – a Taiwan decoration for his efforts to bring about democracy to Taiwan. Pell passed away on January 1st, 2009.
After a brief intermission, the second panel started, which was moderated by Terri Giles of the Formosa Foundation. It was titled: Implications for Today: towards Truth and Reconciliation in Taiwan.
In introducing the first panel, Ms. Giles presented a definition of truth and reconciliation. "The capacity to see and take responsibility for what has been done in the past is an essential premise, said Giles. “'Truth is not something fixed, abstract or an absolute value, but is painfully built on shared memories and experiences. The past cannot be forgotten, because it lingers if there is no truth and reconciliation process."
Quoting Charles Harper of the World Council of Churches, Giles stated that there are four common prerequisites / ethical themes for truth and reconciliation: 1) Preserving the memory; 2) the need for the truth to be known and told; 3) justice to be served; and 4) acknowledgement of wrongdoing. Giles also quoted archbishop Desmond Tutu, who said that making the truth public is also a form of justice, but unless you make a connection between past and present and examine what was done, there is little hope of avoiding committing injustice in the future.
The first speaker was Jerome A. Cohen, Professor of Law at New York University and Co-Director of its US-Asia Law Institute, as well as Adjunct Senior Fellow for Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations. Cohen started by arguing in favor of “Double Reconciliation”: a) in Taiwan itself, and b) between Taiwan and China. He said that watching the movie “Formosa Betrayed” brought back many memories of his involvement with Taiwan’s transition to democracy, from working with Prof. Peng Ming-min in 1969 through his legal assistance to the widow of writer Henry Liu in 1984. Cohen also recounted how he advised the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who was a strong advocate of normalization of relations with China, but who – in a meeting with Chinese foreign minister Huang Hua in Ottawa – refused to give way on the legal status and security of Taiwan.
Cohen discussed the 1985 trial of Bamboo Union boss Chen Chi-li as well as the military court martial of Admiral Wang Hsi-ling – who were responsible for the murder of Henry Liu – and indicated that he had reasons to believe that higher-ups in the Kuomintang government may have been involved. He was astonished when in the military trial, Admiral Wang Hsi-ling stated that “We didn’t do this; if we had done it, nobody would know about it, we are professionals” and then admitted that 10 to 20 years ago “we used to do this all the time.”
Cohen then skipped to the early 1990s, during which significant changes in the judicial system took place at that time. This further accelerated in 2003 with the adoption of a number of measures such as the right to counsel, cross examination, and calling witnesses. However, he said, there is a need for much more legal reform.
Cohen then focused on the need to overcome the bitter divisiveness in the society: both sides need to overcome this, and keep the interest of the Taiwanese people in mind. In his view, this needs to be combined with moves towards some kind of accommodation with China, which must be consistent with Taiwan’s national interests, its freedom and democracy.
As an example of the need to keep freedom and democracy in mind, Cohen referred to the recent decision by the KMT government not to allow Rebiya Kadeer into Taiwan to attend the Kaohsiung Film Festival for the showing of the movie “Ten Conditions of Love.” In Cohen's opinion, Ministry of Interior’s arguments that Kadeer might be a terrorist or is linked to a terrorist organization “is nonsense.” He said that Kadeer lives in Washington DC, and that her presence has not affected anybody’s security here.
Cohen counseled the DPP to use its freedom “in an intelligent way” and said that its policies should not interfere with the economic cooperation Taiwan needs for its economy to prosper. At the same time, we (the U.S.) should not let Beijing dictate what we do or not do: referring to the Berlin Book Fair, Obama’s meeting the Dalai Lama and other examples. China has to learn to get along with the world in a way that accepts that other places are democratic, Cohen stated, “It is bad enough that they control their own society, but we mustn’t allow them to censor other places.”
In closing, Cohen reiterated his call for “double reconciliation” that encompasses both the maintenance of freedom and democracy in Taiwan as well as some kind of cooperation with China. "We hope that we can have reconciliation, as well as the truth about the past, some of these horrible incidents that we must not forget.”
Prof. Arthur Waldron, Lauder Professor of International Relations in the Department of History at the University of Pennsylvania, put the developments in Taiwan in a broader context, and spoke on the process of transitional justice and truth and reconciliation, drawing from the experience in other countries such as South Africa.
Waldron explained that in the “greater realpolitik” of Nixon administration’s normalization with China in the early 1970s, Taiwan was less important, and – in the view of Kissinger and Nixon – should be sacrificed, so improved relations with China could be used to counterbalance the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. However, instead of rolling over, Taiwan became a democracy. This democratization in Waldron's view reflected the failure of the “sacrifice” concept of Kissinger and Nixon.
Waldron then discussed two countervailing forces. On the one hand the rise of China as a major world power gives China the ways and means to exert its influence and force its will on others-- other countries will “need” China to resolve a host of international issues, and will be less amenable to supporting Taiwan. This force is pushing in the direction of a “solution” in which Taiwan is absorbed by China or at best becomes a satellite-state. "If on the other hand, we say that freedom and democracy in Taiwan are part of our basic values, then we find ourselves supporting the position that the ultimate decision about Taiwan’s future is to be made by the Taiwanese themselves, which points in the direction of support for a free, democratic and independent Taiwan."
Waldron then discussed the various concepts of truth and reconciliation, saying that it holds the middle between the Neurenberg model (in which the conqueror comes in and decides who is the guilty one) and the Spanish model (where, after the Franco era, it was decided not to reopen the books so as to avoid further divisiveness in society). Citing the example of South Africa, Waldron discussed how the T&R process there was quite successful but still left many dissatisfied with the results. Turning to Taiwan, Waldron discussed how society in Taiwan has in a way already confronted a past – the events of 228, 1947 – which was absolutely forbidden to even mention for many decades. Now there is a 228 Monument in Taipei that is “carrying everything into memory.”
Still, he expressed deep concern about several recent events, which turned him from being “cautiously optimistic” to “cautiously pessimistic” about Taiwan’s future: first he referred to the trial of former President Chen Shui-bian. Expressing shock about the “stench of vindictiveness” associated with the trial. He stated that “this is not the way a modern, developed country deals with its former head of state.” Waldron was also puzzled by the fact that the current administration in Taipei doesn’t display a greater zeal to investigate the extremely large amount of KMT's onw dirty laundry stashed away in all kind of closets in Taiwan.
These and other events give Waldon cause to be concerned that the party in power in Taiwan is losing track of the way democracy works: “we see the bypassing of the Legislative Yuan, the influx of Chinese money into the media, and the use of economic coercion by China, making democracy increasingly difficult. At its worst, one might say it is an attempt at the restoration of the party-state system in Taiwan.” These developments are eliciting countertrends pulling Taiwan back to its democratic baseline.
In closing Waldron returned to the inherent tension between real democracy in Taiwan and accommodating an increasingly powerful – and still repressive – China. “in history we have been in this position many times before: our democratic values and our beliefs in liberty and freedom may – at least in the short term – work against our material values. I hope we will know which way to chose.”
The final speaker was Ed Friedman, Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison, who served as foreign affairs aide to Congressman Stephen Solarz (D-NY) from January 1981 through August 1983. Friedman drew conclusions from the earlier presentations, assessed the way forward between Taiwan and China, emphasizing the need for the US to remain true to its basic values of freedom and democracy.
Friedman hadlived in a student dormitory at Taiwan National University in the mid-1960s and experienced the KMT’s military dictatorship firsthand on campus. He recounted that in 1969 he had been asked by the Kissinger NSC to write a paper, and that in this paper, titled “Finessing the Taiwan Issue,” Friedman argued that “Taiwan was not an obstacle to US-China normalization if the US would stick to its basic principles." The paper was totally ignored by the Nixon administration, which proceeded to sell Taiwan down the river.
Friedman pointed out tha t“large strategic views” are often very faulty, and turn out NOT to be an accurate description of the real world. In the 1970s this was the use of the opening to China as a counterweight to the Soviet Union and an attempt to resolve the Vietnam crisis. Friedman argued that this simply did not materialize. In a similar way, some in the Obama Administration argue – incorrectly – that as long as we have a G-2 Chimerica solution, then we can solve all the world’s problems.
Friedman believes we should certainly try to be engaging China, but that we should not be naive about it. Rather we should maintain a hard-nosed attitude, keeping in mind the basic principles of democracy and human rights for which the US stands. China sees the US as enemy no. 1, that it is very confident, and even arrogant in perceiving its authoritarianism as the best and even only way to move forward. They perceive democracy as a disaster, and point to the former Soviet Union as an example.
Friedman said that China’s insistence that Taiwan is a “principled issue” is a mere negotiating position, and that if the US holds firm, China will make concessions. The proof is that in spite of all of China’s pronouncements in the 1990s, Taiwan is still a vibrant democracy. According to Friedman, precisely because of China’s increasing global reach, it will have global interests, such as energy security, which will move the Taiwan issue to the back-burner.
Friedman emphasized that Prof. Chen Wen-chen and other freedom fighters did not give their life in vain, since Taiwan does have democracy now, and if its people are pushed too hard in China’s direction, there will be a counterforce. Friedman explained the basic difference between the US’ and China’s story. China 3-part story is that it was once a great and glorious country, then “bad things happened” (humiliation at the hands of the Westerners, Russia and Japan) and now it is returning to its natural place in the world. For the Americans, the story looks quite different: after WW-II Japan rose, then the “Four Tigers” and after that came China’s rise. Taiwan is a happy part of the US’ story but an unhappy part (humiliation at the hands of Japan) of China’s story.
Friedman concluded by saying that we need to make sure that the Taiwan story has a happy ending.
In the Q&A period, Cohen responded to two questions, one from FAPA President Bob Yang, asking whether he would issue another call for the release of former President Chen Shui-bian so he can wage an adequate defense, and one from former FEER reporter Julian Baum, asking whether the erosion of justice during the past year do represent a return to the KMT’s party-state model of the martial law period.
On the first question, Cohen stated that it is essential that in the appeal procedure, former President Chen receives a fair trial, and for this to happen it is necessary for him to be released on bail, under conditions that guarantee that he is not going to flee, and that give him an opportunity to talk to witnesses, consult co-defendants, talk to his lawyers. Otherwise Chen is fighting with one arm tied behind his back. Cohen emphasized it is in the interest of the KMT government and Taiwan’s society as a whole to see that Chen receives a fair trial, otherwise it will just perpetuate the unfortunate partisan conflict on the island.
On the second question, Cohen responded that it is too easy to categorize recent events as a return to the party-state model of the KMT. There is too much going on behind the scenes to draw a conclusion. Cohen did say that many people believe that the prosecutors have far too much power. He gave the example of former ambassador and deputy foreign minister Michael Kau, who is under investigation. Cohen stated that Kau may have made an administrative mistake, but that this in no way warranted a criminal procedure against him. “I am distressed at the prosecution against Kau,” said Cohen.
Cohen also decried the very selective prosecution process, only targeting DPP members, and stated that he would like to see more KMT prosecutions against members of the KMT party who have obviously been involved in corruption.
After remarks by moderator Terri Giles on the movie “Formosa Betrayed”, the conference wass closed by FAPA President Bob Yang, who thanked the speakers for their excellent presentations and the audience for attending the event.
