Turkey: Ambassador Baki Ilkin

 By Susan Jackson

A diverse nation of 63 million, with a land mass of over 800,000 square kilometers, Turkey shares land borders with eight countries (Greece, Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq and Syria).

Turkey is a key US ally in a region marked by turmoil. A member of NATO since 1952, Turkey has stood by the side of the US as far back as the Korean War. During the Persian Gulf War, Turkey broke off relations with Iraq, including closing the oil pipeline before the UN-approved oil-for-food deal reopened it, and allowed US flights from bases in Turkey. Turkey has participated in NATO's action in Kosovo, providing pilots and Turkish F-16 planes, bases for American use, and 1,000 peacekeepers for the peacekeeping mission. Before the bombing in Kosovo ended, Turkey had accepted 17,600 refugees in camps in western Turkey, as well as supported camps in Albania and Macedonia.

Turkey's delegation in the United States is headed by Ambassador Baki Ilkin. Married with two sons, Ilkin began his career in Turkey's Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Department of Greek Affairs. He also served in the Cyprus/Greek Department of the Foreign Ministry followed by postings in Athens and Moscow. Ilkin has been chief of the Private Cabinet of the foreign minister, a counselor in the Turkish Embassy in London, personal advisor to the foreign minister on two separate occasions, and chief of the Turkish president's Private Cabinet. Ilkin also has been ambassador for Turkey in Pakistan, Denmark, and the Netherlands.

The European Union

In 1963 the Association Agreement foresaw Turkey's full membership in the then European Economic Community, incorporating a customs union for trade relations to measure Turkey's progress toward full membership. Due to political instability and the 1980 coup, membership work was stalled. In 1987 Turkey got back on track with its membership application, and in 1995 the Customs Union between Turkey and the European Union (EU) was established.

The EU has stipulated Turkey must make advances in its economy and human rights record in order to accede into the Union. In 1997, the EU's 'Agenda 2000' report on enlargement went further and separated Turkey from other candidates in terms of conditions she must meet before joining the EU. The European Council excluded Turkey from the next round of accession negotiations while including Cyprus and five Central and Eastern European nations. In addition, the Greek-promoted condition that Turkey agree to United Nations negotiations on Cyprus was added to future accession consideration. As a result, Turkey and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) dug in their heels and began insisting the TRNC be accepted as an equal partner with state status in future negotiations, something the US and some members of the EU are against.

WI: How important is it for Turkey to become a member of the European Union (EU) and what is the main obstacle to membership?

Amb. Ilkin: It is important for us to become a member of the EU. We have been seeking full membership since 1963. At the moment Turkey is not ready to be a full member, but we should be considered a full candidate. Although we have established a customs union with the EU, and there are close ties with each member of the EU, and we have an association agreement with the EU, we have not been declared a full candidate. We deserve full candidacy. Becoming a full candidate does not mean you automatically become a full member. There are things which need to be done, and Turkey is prepared to meet those criteria. No other candidate has been asked to fulfill certain requirements before they are declared candidates. In the case of the Central and Eastern European countries, the criteria is not there [for full membership] but they were declared candidates. Definitely, if Europe is reunited, Turkey has also contributed to the process. We have expected more understanding and support from some of our European friends for our full candidacy. There was one more attempt [in June in Cologne] at the European Union Summit to prepare us as a full candidate, but some of the member countries objected. A new attempt will be pushed forward in Finland [at the next EU Summit].

Cyprus

In 1930, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and Eleutherios Venizelos (then leader of Greece) signed the Convention on the Establishment of Commerce and Navigation, a cooperative framework between Turkey and Greece. Peace existed between these two countries until the 1950s when the issue of independence for Cyprus from the British caused ethnic tensions; Greek Cypriots comprised four-fifths of the island's population and Turkish Cypriots worried about ethnic imbalance in the new government. Following strained relations between the two communities, in 1960 the British pulled out of Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus was born, with Greece and Turkey as co-guarantors of the new, independent nation.

Plagued with problems from the beginning, the complex, bi-communal government on Cyprus broke down completely in 1963. As a result of heavy fighting, the Turkish Cypriots retreated into enclaves for protection. The United Nations dispatched a peacekeeping force (UNFICYP) and embarked on a decade-long peacemaking effort. The UN effort failed and in 1974 a rightist Greek group, with the support of the military junta in Athens, usurped the Cypriot government and supported annexing the island to Greece. Turkey reacted by sending its military into northern Cyprus. Ultimately the Turkish military took over a third of the island, which it still holds today. Turkish Cypriots fled north while Greek Cypriots fled south. The 'Green Line' was drawn between the two communities and the Greek Cypriot-led government was reinstated as the world-recognized legitimate power. The Turkish Cypriots declared themselves a state and established the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Against pressure from the world community, Turkey alone has maintained that the Greek Cypriot government is not legitimate and demands negotiations on the status of Cyprus. While the Greek Cypriots look to a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation with a single governmental body, the Turkish Cypriots emphasize the importance of a confederation with the governments of each side seen as equals.

WI: What is the main obstacle to resolving the conflict in Cyprus and what sort of route should Cyprus take toward solving the current problems?

Amb. Ilkin: The basic issue is that the Greek Cypriot side will not accept the realities on the ground. There are two states, two peoples, two sovereign administrations. They have been living separately since 1963. If a solution is to be found, it is to be found in an administration in which the two parties share certain powers, and then they can move on and set up a joint administration. But, if they reject the realities on the ground, I'm afraid there is not a possibility of finding a solution. If the Greek Cypriot administration realizes they do not rule the Turkish Cypriots and that their authority is confined to their side, if they are willing to sit down and discuss on equal footing, on an equal basis with their Turkish Cypriot counterparts, then there could be a solution, a confederation. Who knows what the next 20 or 30 years have in store for both peoples? It will start as a confederation on an equal basis and, hopefully, they can build enough confidence that they can be more integrated as they go along. The Turkish Cypriots want a confederation in which equal sovereignty of the two states is accepted. The Turkish Cypriots recently went to elections, and the party that advocates a confederation won a strong majority in parliament. Cyprus could be a perfect confederation model if the Greek Cypriots agree to the solution.

Human Rights

In April 1999 Turkish citizens elected a new government. The coalition formed from the Democratic Left Party, the Nationalist Action Party and the Motherland Party received a vote of confidence from Parliament and is the 57th government of Turkey. The policy and governing package the coalition presented to parliament covers many needed reforms. For instance, in the area of human rights, the new government proposes to lift barriers to the freedom of expression, improve training of the security forces, and strengthen the independence and functions of the judiciary.

WI: What is Turkey's response to world criticism of its human rights record?

Amb. Ilkin: We are all concerned about our own human rights records. Every country is concerned about this. Few countries can say they are finished [working on human rights]. If you single out Turkey, you will be doing it an injustice. In Turkey's case, we need to do more about it. When you talk about human rights you have to differentiate between the abuse of human rights by individuals and the abuse of human rights by states. You can only put Turkey in the first [category]. For that, the present government has a package; hopefully they will enact it. We would do this not just to appease someone abroad, we would do it for the sake of the nation.

WI: Turkey and the US have a history of partnership. What is the basis of this relationship, and how will you work to strengthen the bridge while you are here?

Ambassador Ilkin: It's a solid relationship. It has gone through the test of time. The most important dimension has been the security issue. [Most recently,] Turkey sent forces to Kosovo. We agreed to receive 46,000 Kosovar refugees and maintained 10,000 refugees in camps in Albania and Macedonia. There is still rebuilding and peacekeeping. [In addition to military cooperation with the US] we are now diversifying our relationship in such areas as culture, energy, and trade. In the last ten years trade has doubled, although this is still an insignificant figure compared to other countries, and we have to do more. We now define our relationship as an enhanced partnership, a mutual respect between the two nations. I believe this relationship serves both nations. A lot has been accomplished but, more can be done.

I love being in Washington. When you receive such a reward, you want to live up to the expectations of your own country. So it is the greatest challenge. One of my priorities is to make sure as many people as possible visit Turkey. Then you will meet the real Turk. There is a gentleness, a hospitality and a selflessness. Also, [among others] the greatest event [we will hold] will be the exhibition from Topkapi Palace at the Corcoran Gallery starting in March [2000]. We will be displaying about 260 objects from Topkapi. The exhibit also will be in San Diego and Ft. Lauderdale. [Pieces that have never before been taken out of Topkapi Palace are to be on display in the 'Palace of Gold and Light: Topkapi's Treasures' exhibition.]

Republic of China: Stephen S. F. Chen

Twenty Years of the Taiwan Relations Act and Beyond

By William Van Swearingen

As thousands of frightened refugees from Kosovo recently streamed into Macedonia, the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan joined in the international effort to ease their suffering. The tiny island republic, 100 miles off the coast of mainland China, sent a chartered jet with relief workers, medical supplies, food, and clothing, along with financial assistance.

Taiwan's representative in Washington, Stephen S. F. Chen, is proud of this latest effort, which recalls his country's similar response last fall to victims of Hurricane Mitch in Central America.
Once the recipient of large amounts of U.S. aid in the 1950's and 1960's, Taiwan is now a donor of foreign assistance. Mr. Chen says this transformation is but a chapter in his country's economic and political success story, which, he is confident, history will judge favorably.

A seasoned diplomat with 46 years of service, he is proud to serve his country at this critical period and knows that whatever future relationship evolves between Taiwan and mainland China, time is on his country's side.

'In 1949, few gave us any chance for survival. Yet we've survived, prospered and transformed ourselves into a representative democracy,' he says.

Mr. Chen makes clear to visitors the reality that the reunification of China is the ultimate goal for both his government and that of the People's Republic of China (PRC). However, he emphasizes that any reunification must ensure the survival of Taiwan's democratic and prosperous system for its 22 million people. That goal, he insists, can only be achieved if the PRC renounces the use of force against Taiwan and becomes a democracy.

Until that day, both mainland China and Taiwan will continue to pursue their own international relations. In 1971, the People's Republic of China (on the mainland) took the Republic of China's seat at the United Nations, and Taiwan's diplomatic position eroded, as many countries changed their official recognition from Taipei to Beijing. Today, Taiwan has official diplomatic ties with only 28 countries. But despite the lack of official recognition, Mr. Chen says, 'We can be a model for many other countries as well as the PRC.'

The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979
Recently Taiwan officials gathered in Washington along with Congressional supporters to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the landmark U.S. legislation governing relations with Taiwan-the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of 1979.

This piece of legislation is unique in diplomatic history in that it is a domestic U.S. law governing relations with another country. The TRA was a response, largely by Congress, aimed at preserving the long-standing friendship and common interests between the United States and Taiwan in the absence of formal diplomatic ties.

On January 1, 1979, the United States switched its diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing, thereby 'derecognizing' its former ally, the Republic of China, as the sole legal government of China.

'We never had any doubt about America's commitment to maintain cultural, commercial and other relations with us through the Taiwan Relations Act,' Chen says emphatically. But, he admits the TRA's ambiguous language has, on more than one occasion, presented challenges for his country. For example, in the area of military support, he says Taiwan had to lobby and wait 11 years to get F-16 aircraft.

He concedes the TRA is very clear about the right to sell defensive weapons to Taiwan in sufficient quantities to preserve its security. And this, he says, is a cautious reminder to Beijing about acceptable behavior, while leaving the terms of America's response up to each administration to decide. 'I would say we feel more secure as a result of TRA, which has helped us create the proper framework in which to prosper.'

An important provision of the TRA created the legal authority for the conduct of unofficial relations between the United States and Taiwan. The American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) with headquarters in Washington, DC and offices in Taiwan, issues visas, assists U.S. citizens in Taiwan and handles commercial and cultural affairs for the two countries. Its counterpart organization, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO), headed by Representative Chen in Washington, DC, includes 12 other offices in cities all over the U.S.A., known as Taipei Economic and Cultural Offices (TECO).

David Laux, president of the US-ROC (Taiwan) Business Council, a 200-member association of U.S. companies, has known Representative Chen for more than 15 years. He says Chen is a good problem-solver, scholar and lover of language and literature. Chen used to write a popular literary column for a newspaper back home. He once carried on and eventually won a four-month debate with a colleague on the origin of the peanut. He also speaks Portuguese and Spanish, having been posted in Buenos Aires and Rio de Janeiro. He also knows six Chinese dialects.

Taiwan's Economic Push
Fifty years ago Taiwan was an underdeveloped agricultural island. Today it is an economic power, a leading producer of electronics and computer products, chemicals, textiles and plastics. It is America's seventh largest trading partner. In the last two years, it has purchased six times more exports from the United States than Russia and over the last ten years, purchased nearly twice the number of American products as the PRC according to the US-ROC (Taiwan) Business Council.

Taiwan has moved from being a recipient of U.S. aid to an aid donor and major foreign investor-the world's seventh largest. With $93 billion, Taiwan has the world's third largest foreign exchange reserves and has averaged 6.5 percent annual growth over the past six years. Mention the Asian economic crisis and Representative Chen pulls a list of these statistics from his vest pocket to explain why his country has weathered the crisis so well. In addition, he cites his country's recent political metamorphosis as another factor.

'I feel our democracy, with free elections at all levels and our well-managed banking system, have prevented the corruption that has pulled down other Asian economies,' he says.
In 1987 Taiwan lifted a decree triggering martial law, under which dissident groups and individuals were often dealt with harshly. The State Department's Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Stanley Roth, says human rights violations are no longer a necessary topic of discussion between the United States and Taiwan. 'Politically, Taiwan has a vibrant democracy characterized by free elections, a free press and dynamic political campaigns.' The country held its first direct presidential election in 1996.

As for the future, Mr. Chen expresses optimism that his country's political and economic success will influence change in the PRC and lead to eventual reunification under terms acceptable to Taiwan. 'But now we are only at stage one of a three-part grand strategy,' he says.

Yet, the economic figures of this stage tell an impressive story. Asian experts point to the dramatic transformation in the Taipei-Beijing relationship since the enactment of the TRA. Trade between the two has since grown on average by 13 percent in the period 1993-1998, making the PRC Taiwan's third largest trading partner after the United States and Japan. There are now 30,000 Taiwan firms located in the PRC, employing over three million mainland Chinese, according to Chen.

These economic ties have led to increased people-to-people contacts. Up to 200,000 Taiwan business people now live on the mainland. Since travel opened up there ten years ago, ten million people from Taiwan have visited the PRC. 'We do not yet permit large-scale infrastructure investments there, but our people's presence can only have a good influence,' says Chen.

'Just imagine,' he says without hesitation, 'history may write some day that the whole of China became a democracy thanks to us.'

New Zealand: Former Prime Minister James Bolger

New Zealand's New Ambassador to the U.S.

By Joanne Haahr

The Right Honorable James Bolger was Prime Minister of New Zealand from October 1990 to December 1997. He led the National Party for almost 12 years and had three consecutive terms as the country's head of government.

Under his leadership the New Zealand economy was transformed from having the lowest growth rate among the 29 OECD nations, to today having one of the strongest. New Zealand is now recognized as being among the most open and competitive economies in the world.

Mr. Bolger's administration pursued an outward-looking foreign policy to strengthen New Zealand's relationships, especially in the Asia/Pacific region. New Zealand is active in international peacekeeping and at the U.N.
Born in Taranaki in 1935, he was a beef and sheep farmer before entering national politics in 1972 when elected to Parliament for King County.

In 1975 he became a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, in 1977 the Minister of Fisheries, and following the 1978 election, Ministers of Labor and Immigration. He went on to serve as President of the International Labor Organization and Leader of the National Party and Opposition. In 1990 he led the National Party to the biggest electoral victory in history.
He retired as Prime Minister in December, 1997, and was appointed Minister of State and Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In March of this year he was named as the new ambassador to the U.S., and he arrived in Washington in June.

Today he lists part-time farming, watching sports (especially rugby), fishing, tramping and reading as his pastimes.

He and his wife, Joan, have nine children and four grandchildren.

I asked Mr. Bolger how the economic downturn in Asia has affected his country.
Ambassador Bolger: It has had a significant, direct impact on New Zealand, and the flattening of these fast-growing markets has resulted in lost market opportunity. The secondary impact is that Australia was also significantly exposed, and that is a major market in itself. So the resultant slow growth in New Zealand, down to little more than zero, is forecasted to last until at least the end of the year. Then we predict a strong bounce back. With the reforms in the New Zealand economy over the last two years, we can face this with confidence in that government, the banking system, and private sector accounts are sound. We'll bounce back, but the immediate impact will be quantitative.

Q: What are your primary goals in your new position?

A: There are many, but the overall ambition is to maintain the best possible relationship between Wellington and Washington in issues of mutual interest. In most instances, we will be working together in international forums. We would like the administration to achieve fast track negotiation authority so they can play a leading role in international trade talks, and to pursue a Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and Washington.

In the security area there are still matters of disagreement in principle. But we want, and I want, a prompt solution to ensure that New Zealand and the U.S. have the best possible security arrangements and defense force cooperation, given our disagreement on nuclear issues. I am delighted that we have progressed in this area to a very good relationship. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said in New Zealand recently that the relationship with New Zealand was one of the best the U.S. had.

With strong trade relations, it is much less likely to have differences on security issues. Trading links and trading opportunities are very important to the state of the world, and you don't want segments of the world locked out.

Q: When you look back on your achievements as Prime Minister, what makes you most proud ?

A: There are many things about which we can be proud. The New Zealand economy is perfectly sound, and I am proud of our strong, robust tradition that enables us to weather the difficulties of the world economy. I am pleased with the role I played in providing the resources to continue to improve education and health. I am also proud of the up-front way we've dealt with our Maori people. We have made great progress in this area of tremendous importance to us as a country, progressively settling claims outstanding for over a hundred years. And I can point to the enthusiasm with which New Zealanders are embracing the liberating force of new technology. What we have done is to reduce to zero the impact of distance; we're very proud of that.

Republic of China: Premier Lien Chan--STATEMENT

A Pragmatic Strategy for China's Peaceful Reunification

The Prime Minister of the Republic of China, Premier Lien Chan, said if Beijing's leaders are sincere about pursuing reunification, they must adopt a strategy that strengthens understanding between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.

Lien said both sides must increase exchanges, boosting the idea of parallel benefits in business, trade, and investment, creating a win win situation.

In an article contributed to 'Foreign Affairs,' published in New York, Lien was optimistic about peaceful resolution of the cross Taiwan Strait tension, given that Taiwan and mainland China had weathered similar crises before.

The following is the full text of his statement.

World attention was drawn to relations between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China in dramatic fashion during July and August of 1995 by two sets of highly publicized missile tests conducted by mainland Chinese military forces close to the northern coast of Taiwan. Beijing's escalation of tension across the Taiwan Straits was widely perceived as a response to a visit in June by ROC President Lee Teng hui to Cornell University, his alma mater.

Although the president's trip was in a private capacity, Beijing further signaled its displeasure by shutting down the non governmental channel of negotiation that since 1993 had met periodically to discuss practical issues concerning the growing trade,investment, and cultural contacts between Taiwan and mainland China. The Taipei based Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF), established in February, 1991 as a private, non profit organization, first met formally in Singapore with its mainland counterpart, the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS), during April, 1993. Since then, the organizations have held nearly a dozen meetings to discuss economic, technical, legal, and other practical cross straits issues. Although these talks carefully avoided direct governmental contacts, they broke decades of mutual isolation between the two sides and helped build greater mutual understanding and cooperation.

To many people, the missile tests and break in SEF ARATS meetings indicated that a genuine crisis had arisen in cross straits relations, one with unsettling implications for the Asia Pacific region and for other nations around the world as well. But Taiwan and mainland China have weathered previous crises successfully. One only need recall the shelling of Quemoy by the Chinese communists in 1954 and 1958, which prompted the United States to send the 7th Fleet to monitor the situation. In the more than 30 years since then, the tension in the Taiwan Straits has gradually slackened.1 It should be remembered that the Chinese term for 'crisis' contains the characters for 'danger' and 'opportunity' -- implying that 'in danger, there is also opportunity.' Thus, despite last summer's tensions, the ROC government has strengthened its resolve to continue pursuing the trade, investment, cultural, and other contacts that have been building since late 1987. Such contacts are seen as productive means to build greater trust between the two sides and, ultimately, to achieve a shared goal: the peaceful reunification of China.

While Beijing has yet to reciprocate by renouncing the possible use of military force against Taiwan, the ROC government is committed to pursuing a peaceful strategy that fosters mutual respect between the two sides. When I became Premier in February, 1993, I made improvement of cross straits ties a high priority in hopes of moving both sides away from the 'zero sum' approach to relations, where one side's gain is at the other's expense, in favor of finding 'win win' solutions that could resolve the problems between us in a mutually beneficial way.

It is clearly counterproductive for both sides to advocate the eventual reunification of China and at the same time indulge in unnecessary diplomatic skirmishes and waste precious resources on military preparations. Why not channel our resources into more productive ways to benefit all our people and advance the cause of peaceful reunification? Thus, I have repeatedly stated my support for increased exchanges in economics and trade, culture and art, technology and news dissemination between the two sides as means to bridge the chasm of misunderstanding that still exists between us. The ROC government's pragmatic strategy for peaceful reunification is to keep building positive cross strait relations through a gradually expanding set of exchanges, thereby introducing an era of negotiation. During the first half of last year, it was beginning to look as if a framework for indirect, high level dialogue between the two sides might eventually result from the six point proposal2 offered by President Lee Teng hui on April 8 in an address to the ROC National Unification Council as a response to an eight point proposal3 regarding cross strait ties announced by Mr. Jiang Zemin, Secretary General of the Chinese Communist Party, on January 30, 1995. Regrettably, this positive development was not the only casualty of Beijing's gestures of displeasure last summer, for the mainland authorities then proceeded to shut down the ongoing administrative level talks between the SEF and ARATS. In our view, this non governmental channel of communication, set up after so much painstaking effort in order to resolve disputes between both sides, should be reopened. Such a channel is all the more important during any period of intensified tension between Taipei and Beijing, because it helps prevent the unfortunate results of miscalculation or misunderstanding.

One example of such misunderstanding is the persistent complaint by Beijing that efforts of the ROC government to gain its rightful international status are an expression of 'Taiwan independence.' Such a stance fails to reflect reality and also ignores our long term efforts to improve cross strait ties and promote the reunification of China. In November, 1987, when the ROC government announced that people in Taiwan could visit their relatives on the Chinese mainland, nearly 40 years of cross strait alienation was terminated. This landmark change in ROC policy has resulted in more than 8.5 million trips to the Chinese mainland as of mid 1995. Moreover, aggregate cross strait trade by the end of1994 exceeded US$70 billion, with US$17.8 billion in 1994 alone. At the same time, we have witnessed growing cultural and academic contacts. Fourteen thousand mainland professionals have visited Taiwan in the past eight years on such exchanges. Such positive momentum on many fronts needs to be continued.

The Basis for a Peaceful And Positive Future

In spirit and direction, the ROC's strategy for peaceful reunification derives from the 1991 Guidelines for National Unification. They delineate three phases for achieving China's reunification: a short term phase of exchanges and reciprocity, a medium term phase of mutual trust and cooperation, and a long term phase of consultation and reunification. There is no fixed time frame for each stage, for it is difficult to predict how long it will take for the two sides to bring their divergent social, political, and economic systems into greater harmony.

As cross strait circumstances have changed, the ROC government has abandoned outdated ideological conflict and has made pragmatic efforts to recast relations in a positive mode. In the past, we hoped to exploit the vast differences between the economic systems of each side of the Taiwan Strait to demonstrate the superiority of our free market system; we now hope to offer the advantages of our system as a model to promote trade and economic growth in mainland China and to decrease cross strait economic disparities as a step toward eventual reunification. Formerly, we saw unrest and upheaval on the mainland as an opportunity to precipitate the rise of freedom and democracy; we now want to see evolutionary, instead of revolutionary, change in this direction. Previously, we sought to limit interaction between the people in our area of effective jurisdiction and those on the mainland; today, we encourage interaction and do not even rule out the possibility of future government to government contacts.

Internationally, we have shelved our dispute with mainland China over the issue of 'China's representation' in the United Nations. We maintain that the most concrete step the international community can take to acknowledge the reality that China is divided and ruled by separate and autonomous governments is to ensure that both sides have satisfactory representation not only in the United Nations, but indeed in all international organizations. Only then can both sides begin to find solutions to the issues that divide them. For this reason, Taiwan and mainland China have to accept the reality of divided rule, not deny each other as equal political entities, and actively nurture favorable conditions for China's eventual reunification. In this way, both sides can gradually move toward national fusion based on democracy, freedom, and prosperity.

We have always tried to clearly state and remain focused on the substantive issues that divide the two sides over how to achieve national reunification. I have personally felt for some time that Taipei and Beijing have no quarrel over the issue of 'nationalism,' or min tsu chu yi which Beijing continually invokes when discussing the issue. The Chinese term min tsu chu yi evokes a sense of common ethnic identity, and nearly all Chinese on Taiwan trace their ancestry back to the Chinese mainland at some point in the past. Min tsu chu yi is also part of Dr. Sun Yat sen's Three Principles of the People, which contains a concept more germane to the issue of national reunification, namely, min ch'uan chu yi. This latter term is sometimes translated as the 'Rights of the People,' but really is another way, in my opinion, of defining 'democracy.' In other words, what matters now in the process of achieving national reunification are differences over the enormous gap in political systems under which our two societies currently operate, not issues of common ethnic identification. Rather than needlessly debating in the international arena whether a particular act is an expression of 'one China, one Taiwan,' 'two Chinas,' or 'Taiwan independence,' the real question the two sides must resolve, as stated before, is how to promote peaceful national reunification according to the principles of democracy, freedom and prosperity.

Obstacles to the Reunification Process

Many of the obstacles that lie in the path to peaceful reunification are based on reluctance in Beijing to relinquish past, outdated policies. For instance, Beijing's position that increased international recognition of Taiwan would encourage sentiment for 'Taiwan independence' is groundless. 'Taiwan independence' is explicitly counter to ROC policy. The ROC government advocates a 'one China' position while simultaneously stressing the undeniable reality that this 'one China' is currently divided and has been ruled by separate, autonomous governments for more than 40 years. Thus, neither the ROC nor the PRC can at present claim to represent the entire Chinese nation.

Beijing also maintains a 'one China' stance, but its version sees the PRC as the sole representative government of China; and Taiwan, being part of China, as a part of the PRC. However, there is no substance to the PRC's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan; it has no right to represent the people of Taiwan. The Chinese communists are trying to achieve by specious rhetoric what they did not achieve by force of arms in 1949. Although it is true that when the ROC government moved to Taiwan in 1949 the population and territory it could effectively administer decreased substantially, the ROC remains an independent sovereign entity -- one that in subsequent years has had outstanding political and economic success. As historical fact and international law attest, the PRC has never exercised any administrative power over Taiwan, and so it has no right to represent our 21 million residents in any international organization or activity.

Given the ROC's political and economic strength, it is only natural for our people to demand an international status commensurate with the reality of Taiwan's role in the world. The result of Beijing's effort to oppose and isolate the ROC in the international community is that, despite being welcome as tourists and businessmen in countries around the world, our citizens are subject to awkward and cumbersome procedures for obtaining visas. Our athletic teams in international competitions cannot even wear the name of their country on their uniforms. And in spite of consistent expressions of willingness and undoubted financial ability to help, the ROC remains unable to join such political organizations as WHO, UNESCO, and even the International Red Cross.

Beijing continues to miss opportunities to build upon the positive momentum of cross strait relations. Old ideas, such as the mainland's 'one country, two systems' formula for resolving the reunification issue are unworkable. The 'one country' Beijing insists on in this transitional arrangement would presumably be the 'People's Republic of China,' and the ultimate system would thus be communist autocracy. Beijing's proposal therefore amounts to reducing the ROC to the status of a local government, while forcing the people of Taiwan to accept Chinese communist rule and to forsake the democracy, freedom, and prosperity they enjoy today. In recent years, the mainland authorities have repeatedly called for 'peaceful reunification,' yet have also refused to renounce the use of force to achieve it. By continually threatening Taiwan, the mainland authorities are pursuing a policy that only widens the psychological gap between the two sides. This is hardly conducive to facilitating the process of reunification.

How to Improve Cross Strait Relations

First, if Beijing's leaders are sincere about pursuing reunification, they must adopt a strategy that strengthens understanding between the two sides. This should include attempts to comprehend the reasons for Taiwan's social, political, and economic development. Popular will in Taiwan, expressed in a free wheeling, multifaceted democratic society, is playing an increasingly important role in guiding the island's development. Thus, any cross strait measure that deviates from the popular will is unacceptable in Taiwan. The mainland authorities simply cannot ignore the views of the Taiwan people. If mainland China's leaders can more vigorously pursue democratic policies and the rule of law, leading to a fair and open society, they will certainly help bring the two sides closer together. And only in this way will they be acting in accordance with the cardinal principles of nationalism which they so strongly advocate.

Second, cross strait relations can be improved by accepting 'parallel benefits' as a common goal. In other words, both sides should strive for a 'win win' approach. Taiwan's people know that cross strait reunification is currently precluded by the great differences between the two sides in terms of political and economic systems and standards of living, rather than 'foreign interference' or the 'advocacy of Taiwan independence by people within Taiwan,' as Beijing has alleged. In recent years, Taipei has consistently expressed its willingness to use Taiwan's economic strength to assist the Chinese mainland. Although the island's development has not been without problems, much of this experience can nevertheless be of considerable value to the mainland.

Third, both sides need to increase exchanges, thereby boosting the idea of parallel benefits in business, trade, and investment. In February 1995, I pointed out in my administrative report to the ROC Legislature that cross strait relations should at present focus on trade and economic issues so that both sides might enjoy the benefits of a market economy. The ROC government has, in accordance with this policy, greatly relaxed its restrictions on cross strait investment and trade, and recently formulated a plan to establish offshore trans shipment centers to allow direct cross strait transportation of cargo. We proposed this plan to nurture conditions that will make it eventually possible to establish postal, trade, and transportation links across the Taiwan Strait. To date, an agreement has been made to allow flights between Taiwan and Macao, some of which could be extended to certain cities in the Chinese mainland after a stopover in Macao and a change of flight number.

We also encourage extensive exchanges in arts, culture, education, literature, science and technology, and hope that future exchanges will not be limited to mere visits or conferences, but will expand to include long term joint research, technological seminars, and academic exchange programs. The ROC government has already eased restrictions on visits by its officials to the Chinese mainland and has relaxed entry procedures for visits by Chinese Communist Party and government officials.

Fourth, we need to implement more pragmatic consultation. After the first SEF ARATS talks in 1993, the two organizations began to provide a consultation channel to deal with problems related to cross strait exchanges. Although matters did not go smoothly at first because consensus could not be easily achieved on such issues as fishery disputes, we were headed in the right direction. I still believe that it is in the interests of both sides to minimize our political differences and resume our dialogue as soon as possible.

All these suggestions are made in a spirit of cooperation and are inspired by a desire to build confidence and trust. They fully accord with our Guidelines for National Unification, which call for fostering an environment of reason, peace, parity and reciprocity in which both sides can jointly pursue the cause of national reunification. Although relations across the Taiwan Strait have been chilled by recent setbacks, we are confident that this situation is only temporary and that peace remains our common aspiration. Progress in cross strait relations has been steady in recent years, and the economic momentum in particular is unlikely to be lost. But we must also look to other issues as well: greater military transparency, increased understanding of political processes on both sides, strengthened cultural exchanges, and wider mutual reporting in the mass media of the changes taking place in both our societies.

In coming years, as now, tension across the Taiwan Strait may occasionally seem to reach crisis proportions. During such times, both sides must have the will to find mutually beneficial solutions and the mechanisms to help carry them out. Each success will bring both sides closer to our shared goal: China's peaceful reunification. 

1After 1949, when the Chinese Communists took over the mainland and the ROC government moved to Taiwan, the two sides at first engaged in sporadic military conflict. By the late 1970s, they had shifted to relatively peaceful confrontation. On November 2, 1987, the ROC government took a major step to help bring the two sides closer together by lifting the ban on visits to mainland China by ROC citizens. This, for the first time, officially sanctioned private exchanges between the two sides. On May 1, 1991, the ROC government announced the termination of the Period of National Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion and abolished the Temporary Provisions to the ROC Constitution that were effective during this period, formally indicating that the ROC policy was to seek peaceful solutions to cross strait issues

2President Lee called on the mainland authorities to pursue reunification based on the reality that the two sides are governed respectively by two governments. In addition, he called for strengthening bilateral cultural exchanges, enhancing mutually beneficial trade relations, ensuring that both sides participate in international organizations on an equal footing, resolving all disputes by peaceful means, and jointly safeguarding prosperity and promoting democracy in Hong Kong and Macao.

3Mr. Jiang's proposals: adhere to the principle of one China, oppose Taiwan's activities in expanding its international living space, jointly safeguard China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, declare that 'Chinese should not fight fellow Chinese,' affirm the economic advantages of economic exchanges and cooperation between the two sides, single out Chinese culture as an important basis for the peaceful reunification of the motherland, exchange views with all parties and personages from all circles in Taiwan, and welcome visits by leaders of the Taiwan authorities.

Bosnia & Croatia: Dr.Nedzib Sacirbey

Working Toward Peace

By Arin Pereira

Croatia has a key role to play in the evolution of the former Yugoslavia, as does the United States. The success of both the Dayton peace agreement and Hague war crimes tribunal will depend in large part on cooperation and support from the Republic of Croatia. The U.S. relationship with Croatia has suffered twists and turns this year: the first official trade mission to Croatia, led by former U.S. Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown, and expected to bring much needed foreign investment, ended in tragedy in April. In May, media fallout from the unearthed, unofficial White House policy to ignore the flow of arms from Iran to Bosnian government forces via Croatia inflamed members of Congress and the public. Currently, there is widespread editorializing about President Clinton's motives as he backs the Bosnian presidential elections, scheduled for September 14. Under provision of the Dayton accords, the elections must be 'free and fair,' a seemingly impossible condition at this point as the two indicted Bosnian Serb war criminals, Radovan Karadzic and General Ratko Mladic, remain at large and influential. In a recent letter to the editor, published in the Washington Post (June 18), Croatian Ambassador Dr. Miomir Zuzul wrote, 'The prospects for a permanent understanding between the parties involved in Bosnia and Herzegovina have never been better,' and he stressed that it would be a mistake not to hold the elections on time. He also stated, 'American involvement will remain essential long after the last U.S. soldier has been withdrawn...' I recently spoke to both Ambassador Zuzul and to Dr. Nedzib Sacirbey, Bosnian representative to the United States. Dr. Sacirbey is a psychiatrist and former university professor. (He once had a student named Radovan Karadzic.) Dr. Sacirbey's son, Muhamed, is Bosnia's Ambassador to the U.N. In talking over the situation with these two experts, I hoped to gain a clearer understanding of the current state of affairs in Croatia and in Bosnia Herzegovina, as the debate over Bosnian elections continues and a new trade mission, to be led by U.S. Trade Secretary Mickey Kantor, plans to leave for Croatia. 

Dr. Nedzib Sacirbey
Bosnian Representative to the U.S.

Dr. Sacirbey, what are the chances that the elections in Bosnia Herzegovina will take place as planned on September 14?

We in Bosnia need elections; we want to have elections. But elections should not be a counting of heads, they should be free expression of the political judgement of citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In order to create the conditions for free expression of political judgement, we need free media. We need freedom of movement, we need a right of recognition to return, and we need absentee ballots for the people who are experts in their area and who are now out of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Otherwise, we already had 200,000 people biologically killed; we do not want a new political killing of those people who will be deprived of their voting rights. 

At this point, does it look as if the necessary conditions will be met in Bosnia Herzegovina before September?

I am not worried about elections being called, but I am bothered if elections are held under adverse conditions, because conditions for free and fair elections should not be different in any country in the world, regardless of whether that country is called Bosnia Herzegovina, Colombia, or Sweden. 

There has been a lot of talk about President Clinton's political maneuvering to avoid the issue of elections in Bosnia Herzegovina during an election year. What is your opinion?

The people of Bosnia Herzegovina are grateful to President Clinton for the many things he did for us. We hope that everything we hear about his desire to have elections in Bosnia Herzegovina as soon as possible, regardless of conditions, is not true. If we have unfair, unfree elections in Bosnia Herzegovina, they will be recognized as American elections, and we do not want the name of America related to something unfair and unfree. 

What about the War Crimes Tribunal? It's taking a long time to bring identified criminals to justice.

The war crimes tribunal definitely does exist in the Hague, established by a UN resolution. The tribunal judges and prosecutors are elected not by Bosnia Herzegovina, but by the UN Security Council and General Assembly. Consequently, it is a neutral court, and, as such, it is the conscience of mankind. The court assembled to judge what happened in Bosnia Herzegovina, in order that it not be repeated at any place on this planet, at any time and to any ethnic or national group. For this reason, the court is important, not just to us in Bosnia, but to mankind. The action of this court, the support of this court, is the common cause of all peace loving and freedom loving people on this planet. Up to now, it has done very little to apprehend war criminals. These crimes in Bosnia were committed under the leadership and command of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. If Serbian people identify themselves with the deeds of these people, they are accepting responsibility. It is in the interest of Serbs and Serbia to separate themselves from the deeds of these criminals. The people try to explain the situation, to show that they are not going too fast in making judgement. They would like to throw light on every aspect leading to these crimes because they demonstrate the humanity in giving General Djukic the chance to die in Belgrade, not in jail. They did not lift the indictment, but they realized he is sick and dying. That human aspect of the court's behavior should be recognized and praised. We are not asking for revenge, we are asking for human behavior. These are crimes against humanity, and, as such, we should demonstrate to these criminals what human behavior means. 

How would you describe the relationship between Bosnia Herzegovina and Croatia? Is Croatia doing all it can to help Bosnia Herzegovina?

I believe they are not. We are neighbors. We were victims of the same aggressor. We try to have relations based on mutual understanding and respect. Unfortunately, just today, I read two pieces. One, a letter to the editor in the Washington Post written by Ambassador Zuzul, entitled 'Bosnia Needs Elections on Schedule.' In the text he adds, 'Croatia is particularly hopeful that the Federation of Bosnian Croats and Muslims will serve as a catalyst for the creation of lasting peace in Bosnia Herzegovina.' When I read this I was very happy. Then, into my hands came the Financial Times with a piece written by Laura Silber and Harriet Martin, the first from Belgrade, the second from Mostar. 'In another setback for the Dayton pact, Mr. Pero Markovic on Saturday was named prime minister of Herceg Bosna, the ethnic state the Croats agreed to disband last November.' I was present in Dayton when the agreement was signed. Unfortunately, Herceg Bosna still exists, something that is definitely not helping. That is the reason why our Prime Minister, Hasan Muratovic, stated that it is an illegal move and shows a lack of Croatian commitment to the newly created federal government in Bosnia. For us, the rights of Croats are very important. But to create Herceg Bosna is not right, it is division of federation, and that is not cooperation. We agreed with Croatians to create a federation of Bosnians and Croats. We call ourselves Bosnians, they call us Muslims; why, I do not know. In the civilized world it is a habit to call people by the name they accept. 

It is said that Sarajevo is going to become a Muslim city. What do you think of that comment?

I definitely disagree. For centuries Sarajevo was a city with a Muslim majority. The number of Muslims was always relatively higher than the number of Serbs and Croats. The Croats started to emigrate from Sarajevo long ago. Their number, percentage wise, went down regularly as they emigrated to Zagreb and to Croatia, while people from rural areas did not come in such numbers as did Muslim Bosnians and Greek Orthodox Serbs. There were many reasons for this, but we Bosnians were always sorry when we saw other people leaving the city, in particular, Croats. When the suburbs of Sarajevo came under Bosnian government control, we tried to convince Serbs to stay. We need them. We need them to build together a new Bosnia with an old concept, the concept of a multi cultural, multi ethnic, multi religious community. They left. Some left because they committed crimes. Some because criminals ordered them to leave. Some because exodus gained a kind of spontaneity. It is not my intention to hide anything, and I cannot hide the fact that some Bosnians acted inappropriately toward Serbs. It was not policy, it was not an act of the masses, it was an act of individuals. I am sorry about it, we have to stop these things, we have to encourage people to live together. Sarajevo should not be a Muslim city, rather a city of Bosnian citizens, and we will encourage all Serbs and all Croats to stay. And we will encourage the Serbs and Croats who left to return. Obviously, we cannot offer an apartment to everyone because Sarajevo was under siege, and many apartment houses have been destroyed. Besides, the refugees from the area that fell under Pale control came to Sarajevo. We cannot expurgate either, but we have to accommodate a new situation. Definitely, everyone who has roots in Sarajevo has the right to claim Sarajevo as their city. 

Is the Dayton peace agreement working?

We welcome the Dayton peace agreement. We love the city of Dayton. But above all, we like peace. And in Sarajevo we do have peace_no shooting, no killing, and we would like this condition to continue. Consequently, the implementation of the Dayton peace agreement is very important to us. When you are discussing the elections, you discuss the fact that we will elect and give life to the democratic institution of Bosnia_putting Croats, Serbs and Bosnians together. We would like these elections to be free, because we would like these institutions to live, not for one year, but for centuries. We want to develop through progress, maybe change in certain ways, as all things change as the result of progress. But everything should be based on human rights. If we have a Bosnia with human rights for everyone and, through this, security for everyone, the borders would be something much less important. 

An interview with the Ambassador of Croatia follows.

Miomir Zuzul
Ambassador of Croatia 

Ambassador, what is the current situation in Croatia?

The situation this year, in comparison to the last five or six years, is quite stable and predictable. We consider war to be behind us. While there is no longer war in Croatia, there are still problems in one part of the country, Eastern Slavonia, which is occupied, (by Serbs), but we believe that situation will be solved peacefully, and there are enough reasons to be optimistic. At the moment we are about in the middle of the process of demilitarization, the crucial part of the process of peaceful reintegration, so we are concentrating on several other things. First, how to fully implement the Dayton peace agreements in Bosnia Herzegovina, because without stability and without long lasting peace, it is difficult to imagine stability in our region. Two other areas are, first, our relationship with the Western world_the reentering of Croatia into the Western world_and our European and transatlantic integration. This is our major concern involving international relations. The second area of concentration is economic development, or the establishment of economic relations with the West, primarily the United States. Such relations already exist between Croatia and the majority of Western European countries. 

Do you explain the delay in Croatia's acceptance into the European Community?

It is sometimes quite difficult for us to accept, but we can understand it from the perspective of the European Union, or European countries generally. First, it is no secret that there are those who never wanted Croatia, so Croatia is somehow like an unwanted child. They need time to accept the fact that we exist, and that we will exist in that territory as an independent state. Second, there are those in Europe who believe it would be much better to solve the problems of the whole region at one time. There is logic in that, but that logic is not acceptable to us because we do not want to be hostages to a situation where we know who's to blame. Third, there are still those who believe that Europe's future is better served if Croatia is not tied with the process of regional stabilization, but is in a long term position as part of Yugoslavia. And, of course, there are those who genuinely believe that there are some elements in the development of Croatian democracy that should be better solved than is the case now. I think that those four different approaches or combinations of approaches are why we sometimes receive negative reactions from Europe on the subject of reintegration, for example, from the Council of Europe. 

What about the issue of freedom of the press in Croatia?

Yes, freedom of the press is generally an issue when we discuss new developments in Croatia. Looking from the West's perspective, obviously some elements are more visible than others. What I truly believe is that as we look at the global picture, we have to learn how to find the relationship between responsibility and freedom, which is actually the basic element of democracy. In Croatia we still do not have established rules pertaining to those issues. So on the one hand, we almost have anarchy more than freedom. It is possible to write whatever you want in Croatia, to invent something, even to write an article based on clear lies. On the other hand, sometimes the government reacts in a way which is not usual in a democratic state, and we must find a way to deal with that. I think it is a general process, not only for Croatia, but for any new democracy. Personally, I do not believe it will be a big problem, nor that it should be, because Croatia wants to be a democratic state in the full meaning of the term. It is not always easy, but I have no doubt that we will solve these issues. At present, there are maybe a dozen influential weekly journals published. At least 10 of them are completely independent and quite critical regarding the leading party, even the State. There are not as many independent daily newspapers, but this is simply because they do not make as much money. Speaking of the electronic media in Croatia, which has also been criticized, there is a possibility for more private channels, but finding investors is the problem. In meetings with people in the U.S., I try to attract investment in free, independent channels in Croatia. That would be the best proof of freedom of the press in Croatia. I can assure you that such a private initiative would more than likely be accepted. 

What kinds of plans exist to continue the trade relations launched by former U.S. Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown?

I am glad to confirm that the new mission, to be led by U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor in early July, has given us concrete elements to be worked on, but we have, more or less, the same elements we had with the first mission. The chance to enter into a new stage of economic relations between Croatia and the United States is very important. We also believe that if we are able to develop that new stage, it will be the best guarantee of long lasting stability in the region. In that regard, it is no secret that the situation in Croatia is quite different from that in Bosnia Herzegovina. The region has two parallel and connected parts, but with differences. The majority of the companies that came with the first trade mission already had ideas on how to work with Croatia, but very few with Bosnia Herzegovina. Now I think the situation is similar, but on our side we will support all kinds of projects which will help Bosnia Herzegovina recover from the war, especially projects which will strengthen the relations between Bosnia Herzegovina and Croatia. 

How would you describe the current state of relations between Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina?

Our relations are complex and very sensitive. From the beginning, our relations, and the criteria used to evaluate our relations, have been different from those of two completely independent states. First of all, we share parts of a common history; there are Croatians living in parts of Bosnia Herzegovina, and we have been exposed to the same war and same aggression. We fought together, and it is true that because of that situation, many problems developed. We were the first state to recognize independent Bosnia Herzegovina, although that fact is not well known. Now, and in the future, we will not only recognize, but support, the independence and sovereignty of Bosnia Herzegovina. But we also want to develop specific and special relations; we believe that is best for our futures. Once the problems are solved in Bosnia Herzegovina, we will have closer relations than with other countries in the region. That means we will be very economically interconnected. The geography of our two countries is such that it pushes us in the direction of closer ties. We also believe in our ability to maintain friendly and specific political relations in the future, and those kinds of relations, exactly as they were described in the Dayton agreement, can be based on long lasting stability, not conflict in that region. To arrive at that stage we certainly need American support.

Bosnia: Dr. Nedzib Sacirbey

Free and Fair elections in Bosnia?

By Dr. Nedzib Sacirbey

If Western leaders had not depended so much on the so-called military experts who succeeded, for a long time, in preventing proper action to stop the war criminals, Karadzic and Mladic, and the bloodshed in Bosnia, we would have 200,000 people still alive, no need for the Dayton Peace Accord, and maybe Karadzic and Mladic would still be citizens, not war criminals. Maybe we can learn something from this horror.

Now we face elections on September 14. According to the Dayton Peace Agreement, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Republika Srpska agreed to hold free, fair and democratic elections in a politically neutral environment. The election should be for the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Parliament of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Parliament of Republika Srpska and President of Republika Srpska and, if possible, for the assemblies of cantons and municipalities. As a farther condition, Annex three of the Dayton Agreement insists that freedom of news media and freedom of movement throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina should exist as well as the freedom of refugees to return to their homes.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is in charge of elections, and its chairman, Swiss Foreign Minister Mr. Flavio Cotty, has shown hesitation in agreeing that elections should be held on September 14, 1996. U.S. media frequently report pending Bosnia elections, and almost all reports from the area are very critical about the conditions in Bosnia, in particular, Republika Srpska and the so-called 'Croatian Republic Herzeg Bosna' area under control of H.V.O. (Croatian Council of Defense).

We in Bosnia and Herzegovina need and want to have elections as the way to integrate the country and its institutions and continue the process of reconciliation. We want free, fair, democratic elections. Contrary to what some of the key negotiators say, we cannot settle for 'not perfect' or 'imperfect' elections, because not perfect or imperfect means the elections are not free or not fair or both, therefore they are simply unjust. It is a positive for Bosnia that the decision is not in the hands of Bosnians. We cannot be accused of bias if we call or postpone elections. But whoever makes that decision will not be judged just today, but evaluated by history-a permanent part of the record of the statesmen involved.

Several reputable international organizations such as the Helsinki Watch International Crisis Center and others have reported that there is no freedom of the news media in the Republika Srpska and the area under control of the Croatian Council of Defense (the so-called Croatian Republic Herzeg Bosna). There is freedom of the media in the cities of Sarajevo, Travnik, Tuzla and Zenica which are under the control of the Bosnian government. There is no freedom of movement in the Republika Srpska, and no return of refugees. We recently saw on television how Serbs and police in the Republika Srpska beat Bosnian Muslims who were trying to return to their homes in Mahala, a village on the line separating the Federation of Bosnia Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska.

Another serious problem in the upcoming election is registration of voters and the voting of refugees living abroad, including the U.S. Thousands wait to learn if they are registered or wait for absentee ballots to arrive in the mail. They are anxious because time is running out and they are concerned that their right to vote will be taken by someone's negligence.

Many were relieved when American Ambassador Robert Frowick, in charge of the OSCE mission in Bosnia, postponed municipality elections, and it is my personal belief that conditions for free and fair elections do not exist at this time. Unfortunately, those in charge were slow in creating proper conditions for holding elections, and the outcome of the upcoming elections will reflect how poorly they exercised their responsibilities.

Cover Photo by Arman Dz

Indonesia: Ambassador Dr. Arifin M. Siregar

Indonesia: Preparing for the Future

by Dr. Arifin M. Siregar 

Indonesia proclaimed its independence from the Dutch on August 17, 1945. We are an achipelagic state of 195 million occupying over 17,000 islands scattered some 3,500 miles along the equator, roughly the distance from New York to San Francisco.

Drawn from over 300 ethnic groups, Indonesians speaking many dialects. But we are united in purpose, determination and goals. Our motto is Bhinneka Tunggal Ika, 'Unity in Diversity.'

Our national philosophy is governed by five inseparable and interrelated principles known as Pancasila. These are belief in One God, a just and civilized society, unity, democracy guided by consensus, and social justice for all.

Under the leadership of President Soeharto, since 1967 Indonesia has placed economic development, buttressed by political stability, as a top priority. Since 1969, a series of Five Year Development Plans have been implemented. Now in the sixth plan, the results have been encouraging. From one of the world's poorest nations 30 years ago, with a per capita income of only $70, Indonesia has raised this statistic to $1000, while fostering a growing middle class of 20 million.

The number below the poverty line has plummeted from more than 60% to less than 14%. Life expectancy has increased to 63 from 45. The average citizen's purchasing power continues to strengthen. This, coupled with our enormous infrastructure requirements, led the U.S. Dept. of Commerce to designate Indonesia as one of the 10 Big Emerging Markets for American goods and services.

This rapid economic growth, averaging 7% in the past 10 years, is underpinned by a dedicated, hard working labor force and the blessings of fertile soil and abundant natural resources oil and gas, copper, gold, tin, nickel, coal, bauxite and timber. Already a significant oil and gas exporter, Indonesia and its American partners will develop the world's largest natural gas reserves in the Natuna Sea.

In the 1980's, Indonesia initiated deregulation and liberalization policies across the entire economy. The result of reforms in banking, trade, investment and taxation was an economy that expanded to a 7% growth rate rising to 8% in the last year. Import substitution policies, relying heavily on subsidies and protection of domestic production, were replaced by an export oriented strategy. Increased opportunities to the private sector, domestic and foreign, lead to a very favorable investment and business climate.

Results are apparent. Foreign direct investment applications increased, and approvals of foreign investment, some $1 billion in 1984, rose to $13.7 billion by 1994 and $39.9 billion in 1995. U.S. direct investment in the non oil sector approached $11 billion, fifth behind Japan, the U.K., Hong Kong and Singapore.

Trade between Indonesia and the U.S. rose 107% from 1989 to 1995, reaching $10.5 billion. Indonesia imports a range of U.S. products and commodities including cotton, soybeans, machinery, electric generators, dredges and platforms, telecommunications equipment, aircraft, chemical wood pulp, compressors and fans. As our income rises and infrastructure needs expand, Indonesia great promise to American exporters. Our trade is complementary. The U.S. is one of our top export destinations for non oil and gas exports, including textiles and apparel, rubber, wood and food products, footwear and machinery.

Politically, Indonesia has adopted an increasingly important international role, commensurate with our size, strategic location and contribution to the regional and global economy. These areas are also of strategic importance to the U.S. Indonesia co chaired the Cambodian peace process.

For three years President Soeharto was Chair of the Non Aligned Movement where he chartered a course that lead to more constructive and mutually beneficial cooperation between North and South. Indonesia supported the Middle East peace process and played an important role in bringing peace to Cambodia. As of 1995, Indonesia is a non permanent member of the UN Security Council. Indonesia was instrumental in founding the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Free Trade Area. As Chair of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in 1994, President Soeharto secured the agreement of his counterparts, including the U.S., to work towards free trade by 2010 for developed countries and 2020 for the rest of APEC. Indonesia, with the U.S. and ASEAN countries, focuses on regional security through the ASEAN Regional Forum.