Taiwan

HL Deb 08 July 2004 vol 663 cc995-1004

4.11 p.m.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to improve relations with Taiwan.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-chairman of the All-Party Group on Taiwan, in which capacity I have twice visited Taiwan, most recently for the inauguration ceremony following the re-election of President Chen Shui-bian on 20 May.

I start by acknowledging that there is little prospect, at present at least, of Her Majesty's Government breaking away from the collective decision taken in 1971 by the international community to grant recognition to the People's Republic of China at the expense of Taiwan. However, we do not need to debate the "One China" policy in discussing how we can improve relations with Taiwan.

Let us be clear how important to United Kingdom interests Taiwan is. Taiwan is the UK's 20th-largest export market worldwide. Our exports were worth £940 million in 2003, an increase of 6 per cent on 2002. Between January and April this year, our exports to Taiwan increased by 20.4 per cent from the same period in 2003. It is a hugely important target market for British trade internationally. Some 70 per cent of all Taiwanese manufacturing investments in Europe are in the UK, with 175 firms from Taiwan having a presence here. Between them, they maintain more than 10,000 jobs. There are now 14,000 Taiwanese students pursuing their studies in the United Kingdom, which is almost 30 per cent of the total Taiwanese overseas student market. They make a great difference to the financial viability of many educational courses, particularly in our newer universities.

There is, I am pleased to say, strong British government support for all those links. When I was in Taipei, I heard nothing but praise for the efforts of our permanent mission—the British Trade and Cultural Office there. Taiwan's annual GDP growth rate in the past 30 years has averaged 8 per cent. One example of its manufacturing success is that it makes 70 per cent the world's personal notebook computers, turning out 32 million of them this year.

So if one is looking for tests of statehood, there is no doubt that Taiwan passes every economic test. However, another attribute of a sovereign state is a free and open democratic system of government. Taiwan does not do badly in that regard. The turnout in the recent presidential election was 80.28 per cent. Would that we could achieve a figure even approaching that in any sort of election here.

How different from what is happening not too far away in Hong Kong, where the "one-country, two-systems" agreement for its transition from British to Chinese rule is being systematically torn up by the PRC and hundreds of thousands are taking to the streets to defend freedoms which are being eroded by the government in Beijing. A diplomatic masterstroke on the part of the Beijing Government is the decision to locate 500 missiles on the south-eastern coast of the Chinese mainland, all pointing directly at targets on Taiwan. That is twice as many as there were just three years ago. That military threat would be a sufficient reason alone why Her Majesty's Government must not falter in the face of pressure from France and Germany and possibly other EU countries to lift the European Union embargo on the sale of arms to mainland China.

How else can we do more to improve relations with Taiwan? We should, for example, review the way in which we treat Taiwanese visitors to the United Kingdom, particularly high-ranking Taiwanese officials from the President downwards, who have not been granted admission to the United Kingdom even on purely private or transit visits. We should also review how we treat official representatives of the Taiwan Government working in London compared with how our officials in Taipei and Taiwanese officials in other EU capital cities are treated. I know that a number elsewhere are accorded a much better diplomatic status than their counterparts are here.

I turn to Taiwan's membership of international organisations. Its admittance to the World Trade Organisation in 2001 was a welcome and important step forward, and I congratulate the Government on supporting that. That makes it all the more disappointing that they did not support Taiwan's application for observer status at the World Health Assembly at the annual World Health Organisation meeting in Geneva in May this year.

There are two compelling reasons why Taiwan should be admitted. The first is that Taiwan has made remarkable progress in improving standards of public health, to the point where it has one of the highest levels of life expectancy in Asia. It has shared these advances with many developing nations and has given generous help to countries suffering earthquakes and other natural disasters.

The second reason is that Taiwan's exclusion from the WHO has meant that Taiwan has been denied help when it was really needed, such as when the SARS epidemic came across the Taiwan Strait and infected so many of its people last year. It reported the first SARS cases immediately, in March 2003, and begged the WHO for help. It took until 3 May before the WHO experts became involved, by which time more than 100 cases had been diagnosed and eight people had died.

The response of the People's Republic of China was that it takes care of the lives of the 23 million Taiwanese people. That would be a joke if it did not have such deadly consequences. The WHO already has observers which are entities rather than states, such as the PLO and the Holy See, and even Liechtenstein has observer status. So why cannot our Government follow the lead set by the United States and Japan which backed Taiwan's observer status in the WHO in the World Health Assembly in May this year?

Rather more encouraging was the Explanation of Vote by the EU in the WHA on 17 May, which stated: We hope that the Secretariat, and others organising technical meetings and working groups under the WHO auspices, will show flexibility in finding mechanisms to allow Taiwanese medical and public health officials to participate in these activities". By contrast, the support given by the WHO director-general, Dr Jong-wook Lee, for the PRC's proposal that Taiwan join the Chinese delegation, was really very unhelpful and inappropriate.

There are, I am afraid, many other examples of how the PRC and its agents attempt to block the legitimate involvement of Taiwan in important international forums. Only this Sunday, four days ago, I received a letter from Professor Barry Rider, the retiring director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. For the past 21 years, Professor Rider has run a symposium on economic crime at Jesus College Cambridge, attended by 800 participants from around the world.

One of the most important of those has been the Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau in Taiwan—it is their FBI—which shares its knowledge of organized crime to the benefit of everyone who attends. This has covered economic crime, money laundering and murder investigations. It has also continued to welcome the involvement of the PRC in the symposia. In his letter to me, Professor Rider says, The Chinese Embassy has been very concerned about the symposium according any kind of recognition to Taiwan. Several years ago there was a great flurry of activity when the programme referred to the RoC and several senior officials from the Embassy demanded to meet with me in Cambridge and more or less threatened me. They indicated that pressure would be applied to ensure that the symposium did not remain in Cambridge and I would lose my job".

Professor Rider goes on to describe how the PRC's attitude has worsened over the past three years, and that a large delegation of Chinese officials who had intended to participate in the symposium last year has been stopped, apparently at the behest of the PRC embassy in London.

What this alarming story demonstrates, as does the PRC's resistance to Taiwan's participation in the WHO, is that political point scoring at Taiwan's expense seems to matter more to mainland China than the greater public good that comes from involving Taiwan and its experts in international organisations.

Finally, I say to my noble friend that I hope the Government will take an understanding and sympathetic approach to the democratic reforms likely to be undertaken by President Chen's new administration in Taiwan. He has repeatedly made it clear—most recently in an interview with the Washington Post on 29 March this year—that he has no intention of changing the status quo as far as cross-strait relations are concerned. His aim in this regard is to achieve a permanent, peaceful settlement. He is, however, intending to conduct major constitutional reforms in the next fours years of his second term, which aim to make Taiwan's democracy more competitive in a globalised economy, and take the government closer to the people.

It would be neither right nor appropriate for us in the West to get involved in this debate, which should involve the people of Taiwan and no one else. There is nothing in this approach which is even faintly threatening or challenging to mainland China. If the concept of an ethical foreign policy has any meaning at all, it requires democracies such as ours to stand up for the rights of other democracies which are threatened and intimidated by their neighbours.

4.22 p.m.

Lord Russell-Johnston

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for introducing and thereby enabling this short debate.

As the noble Lord said, we were in Taipei together on 20 March. We observed the election earlier, and it was very close: a majority of 30,000 in 13 million votes cast. So there was a bit of rumbling going on, which you might expect. It would happen in this country if there were a very close election, and in the same way that we had recounts, they had recounts. The interesting thing for me was, although I have observed a lot of elections in the former area of Soviet influence, there were always suggestions, in advance, that the election would be rigged. In Taiwan, there was no such suggestion by anybody.

I begin by relating a personal experience from some two and a half years ago which made me think intensely about Taiwan and our reaction in the democratic world—which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has been talking about—to its position. Every year, Liberal International—which is the worldwide organisation of Liberal parties, just as Socialist International is for the socialist equivalent—awards a prize for freedom. This is not at all confined to Liberals, and previous recipients have included, for example, Aung San Suu Kyi, who was mentioned in the House this week, and Mary Robinson and Vaclav Havel. In 2001, we awarded the prize to President Chen of Taiwan.

So it came about that, on 14 November 2001, I found myself presenting this prize to his wife, Wu Shu Chen, who is confined to a wheelchair. At that time, I was president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, but I presented the award in my personal capacity as a Liberal. Pat Cox, who had already been nominated to become the next President of the European Parliament, was also present but as a leader of the Liberal group there.

I hope that noble Lords will forgive my slight indulgence in quoting part of the speech that I made on that occasion. I said: Each of those who have received our Liberal Prize for Freedom has made a very particular contribution to the advance of liberty and tolerance on our planet but the situation of Taiwan, the role of President Chen and the decision to make the award itself, make the ceremony, in which we are participating, unique. We are living through the aftermath of the brutal and cruel terrorist attacks on the United States"— Noble Lords should remember that the speech was made on 14 November, 2001— and everywhere there are calls to defend freedom and stand up for democracy. Yet President Chen, despite his long and courageous and ultimately triumphant battle for democracy in Taiwan—which cannot be disputed! —is prevented from coming here, to accept his award in person, by a decision of the European Union which I can only describe as cowardly and hypocritical. Their decision is to deny visas to the five most senior representatives of Taiwan—President, Vice President, Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Defence Minister—even for private visits. It is a decision which makes me ashamed". Incidentally, that decision is not clearly available in writing anywhere. It was an informal decision taken behind closed doors with no microphones.

In case it is thought that in saying this I am selectively attacking socialist or Conservative administrations, let me make it clear that that is not so. I am attacking the consensus of realpolitik against any perceptible democratic principle which seems to span the whole democratic political spectrum when dealing with Taiwan.

Obviously, when deciding where the award would be presented, we considered those European governments where there were Liberals in coalition. We went off to see the Danes, our first choice. They said, "It is very difficult, as we have a lot of trade with the People's Republic of China and there is this agreement of the European Union". So we went to the Netherlands and then to Belgium, from both of whom we got the same story. No European country would give a visa. Finally, we reached the Strasbourg compromise, with France giving Madame Chen a visa on the informal understanding that her visit would be "low profile".

The position of France, for which the Minister is not responsible, makes me particularly sad when I consider its contribution to democracy, which I greatly admire. It made me sick when, just before the recent election and referendum, President Chirac, in the presence of the Prime Minister of the People's Republic of China, said that the proposed referendum was "a provocation". A referendum is a provocation? A consultation of the people is a provocation? There are certainly no referendums in the People's Republic of China.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, I welcome the support given by Her Majesty's Government to Taiwanese membership of the WTO. Like him, I do not understand why that is acceptable when membership of the WHO is not acceptable. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, set out the argument clearly, so I do not need to repeat it. I agree that it is a good thing that the United Kingdom resisted lifting the European Union ban on weapons sales that was introduced after the Tiananmen Square massacre, for which there has never really been an apology. Last November or December, in a remarkable vote in the European Parliament, there was cross-party opposition to lifting the ban.

More fundamentally, it is offensive that democratic countries prefer to trade with a country that is guilty of huge human rights abuses, is not democratic and threatens Taiwan with missiles, than with 23 million people who have chosen a democratic path, often with great difficulty. That is especially true in light of my clear understanding that there has been no international resolution of Taiwan's status. China's historical claims to sovereignty therefore have far from legal acceptance, even before we begin to look at what is right in today's circumstances.

I end with another quotation. I am glad to tell noble Lords that it is not my own, but one from Federica Sabbati, the Italian secretary-general of Liberal International. She put it so very clearly and I can do no better. In an article about the problems surrounding the prize about which I spoke, she wrote: In all this, then, the question seems to be what value do we give to promoting freedom? How important is it for the democratic countries like the ones composing the European Union to promote the universality of those principles enshrined in their constitutions? On paper, it seems paramount. However, there seem to be exceptions…in particular when it is more convenient to us or when asserting our principles may seem to have embarrassing consequences. But what is a principle if we have no courage to fight for it? Why bother with principles in the first place"?

4.32 p.m.

Lord Astor of Hever

My Lords, I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, for introducing this debate. The recent elections in Taiwan, at which both he and the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, were clearly observers, and Taiwan's growing stature on the global economic stage, make this a timely question and one which has brought forth excellent points from both noble Lords.

I echo all sides of the House when I say that we on the Opposition Benches welcome the continuing growth of democracy in Taiwan. Although the March elections were sadly overshadowed by controversy over disputed votes and allegations of a rigged gun attack on President Chen Shui-bian, it is heartening to see Taiwan's success in encouraging democratic rule and participation.

Having said that, I regret that the recent election results appear to be inconclusive and have therefore resulted in an atmosphere of uncertainty and confusion within the government of Taiwan. Coupled with that, the Government's inability to reach a definite resolution on rapprochement with Beijing has caused further disarray and done little to calm the situation.

The potential conflict between China and Taiwan has been a serious threat to the stability of the Asia-Pacific region for some years. Although interaction between the two sides has increased, particularly in the aftermath of their accessions to the World Trade Organisation, the situation there remains volatile.

Obviously, we echo the view of the Government in acknowledging that Taiwan is a province of China and that the future of Taiwan should be decided by people on both sides of the straits. However, a process of reconciliation between Taiwan and China should be carried out and we would encourage both governments to promote this. Even the most basic efforts could be built on, such as establishing direct flights between Taipei and mainland China. Would the Minister comment on that and whether this might in turn lead to more open communication and improved economic links?

We would be extremely alarmed if either side was driven to military action and we hope that the situation will eventually be decided peacefully and calmly. Therefore, we would encourage Taiwan's leaders to approach their relations with China in such a way as to promote useful open dialogue and to avoid confusion and misinterpretation. In the past, the Chinese Government have been offended by speeches made by President Chen, which has undermined attempts at reconciliation. For example, the Chinese spokesman for Taiwan affairs, Zhang Mingqing, described President Chen's inaugural speech of 20 March 2004, as showing, he said, no sincerity to improve relations".

As far as concerns developing British relations with Taiwan, we would encourage the Government to do so, while also exercising caution. We believe that developing a strong commercial relationship with Taiwan is highly favourable for the UK. Taiwan's reputation as a significant member of the global economic community is long established and building close links with Taiwanese businesses can only be advantageous to the British market. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, pointed out that Taiwan is our 20th largest export market. Unofficial links with Taiwan through educational and cultural programmes have been developing in this country for some time and have obvious benefits for both sides. In that context, will the Minister say a word or two about the good work that the British Council is doing in Taiwan?

The United Kingdom's relationship with Taiwan should be actively encouraged by the Government, providing it is cultivated within the boundaries set by our acknowledgement of Taiwan's status and its own relationship with China. We hope that our informal ties with Taiwan remain strong and, if possible, are a means through which to encourage a peaceful resolution in the Taiwan Straits.

4.37 p.m.

Baroness Crawley

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for raising the important subject of UK relations with Taiwan. Our bilateral relations in areas such as commerce, education and culture are in excellent shape and we have had a useful and informative debate, although compact. I thank my noble friend and other noble Lords who are members of the all-party parliamentary group for the time and effort that they dedicate to strengthening bilateral relations. My noble friend said that his most recent visit to Taiwan was to lead a parliamentary delegation for Chen Shui-bian's inauguration. Her Majesty's Government continue to welcome the development of democracy in Taiwan.

My noble friend touched on Taiwan's relationship with mainland China and the EU arms embargo. On the specific question of the arms embargo my noble friend will know that a review is ongoing. I have noted his comments, but it would be inappropriate to comment further before the end of that review.

We consider that the future of Taiwan is a matter for the people on both sides of the Taiwan Straits to settle among themselves. We welcome any efforts by both sides to lower tensions and to find a mutually acceptable basis for a resumption of peaceful dialogue—an issue that was raised by all noble Lords this afternoon. We would view with extreme concern any recourse to military action. We take every suitable opportunity to convey to the Chinese Government our strong opposition to the use of force. In the absence of diplomatic relations with Taiwan, representations to the Taiwanese authorities must be informal. We are confident that they are aware of our views.

My noble friend raised the issue of the World Health Organisation and Taiwan, as did the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston. This year, the World Health Assembly debated at length its relationship with Taiwan. Taiwan's healthcare is of a high calibre. However, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, there are practical difficulties of sharing that expertise in a UN forum where statehood is a prerequisite for full membership. I assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government fully endorse the views expressed in the European Union's explication de vote that he quoted.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester

My Lords, I do not think that anyone is arguing for full membership for Taiwan. The issue is observer status, of the sort that is granted to the PLO and the Holy See. Why is that so difficult?

Baroness Crawley

My Lords, the reason that we endorsed that explication de vote at the World Health Assembly was that Ireland, in speaking on behalf of all the EU member states, having the EU presidency, expressed the EU's hope—I hope that this will answer my noble friend to some extent—that the WHO secretariat and others organising meetings and working groups under the WHO auspices would show flexibility in finding mechanisms to allow Taiwanese medical and public health officials to participate in the activities. Her Majesty's Government fully endorse any research into finding that flexibility.

I now turn to the bilateral relationship that we have. Her Majesty's Government's position on Taiwan's status is well known. It remains our policy and forms the foundation of our dealings, but non-recognition should not inhibit the development of close relations in areas such as education and trade. The UK strongly supports Taiwan's membership of the World Trade Organisation. Taiwan has an important contribution to make in bringing about free and fair world trade. We welcome the progress that has been made so far in relation to Taiwan's WTO commitments, which was one of the key issues discussed at our recent annual trade policy talks.

The UK remains the favoured destination for Taiwanese investment in Europe. There are about 150 Taiwanese companies in the UK. We are encouraging them to diversify their work from manufacturing into research and development. Recent manufacturing successes include the decisions by China Magnetics Corporation and Ritek, the world's two leading producers of digital storage media, to build and produce next generation products here in the UK. UK exports to Taiwan last year amounted to just over £900 million. During his recent visit to Taiwan, my noble friend will no doubt have been impressed by the number of familiar names that he saw on the high street in Taipei: B? MFI; Boots; Tesco, which all now have significant operations in Taiwan, with plans for further expansion. As the noble Lord noted, the British Trade and Cultural Office, the non-governmental office in Taiwan that represents UK economic and cultural interests, is active in boosting Britain's profile in Taiwan and improving our unofficial links. The British Trade and Cultural Office is supported in Taiwan by an active British Chamber of Commerce and by the Taiwan British Business Council. Formed in 1999, the TBBC is an industry-led, government-supported organisation, which aims to promote business and investment between Taiwan and the UK. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for giving a keynote speech at the TBBC's sixth annual meeting this April.

Our links in education, culture and science are also very strong. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked about the work of the British Council. I am happy to report that the British Council is very active in Taiwan. In early June, Sir David Green, director-general of the British Council, opened its new premises in Taipei. As well as beginning to teach English for the first time in Taiwan, the British Council and Taipei City have jointly developed a teachers' resource pack that is used in all primary schools in Taipei.

The British Council and BTCO are also working to promote British science. Last year, their exhibition on the discovery of DNA was seen by more than 500,000 people in three museums around Taiwan. They also organised a visit by Nobel laureate, Sir John Sulston, to promote public understanding of science.

Artists' exchanges and residencies continue to improve the links between British and Taiwanese artists, dancers and musicians. The Taipei Representative Office in London must also take a great deal of credit for the improving relations. It shares our aim of developing substantive links between the UK and Taiwan. The TRO is headed by the distinguished academic, Dr Tien Hung-mao.

Our lack of diplomatic relations means that we cannot afford Dr Tien and his colleagues the privileges that go with diplomatic status. But we try to minimise the practical inconveniences that they may face. I have noted my noble friend's comments.

Lord Slynn of Hadley

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Before she finishes this aspect of her speech, perhaps I may ask whether she would include, together with art, culture and so forth, the very important role played by many Taiwanese lawyers in the development of international law.

I raise that here because the headquarters of the International Law Association, of which I am chairman, is in London. The Government should know, if they do not already know—in fact, the Minister probably does already know—what a very great contribution international law has received from Taiwanese lawyers and members of the government, and so forth. They always come to functions here. They always assist lawyers from other countries who may not have the means to go to international conferences. They have done a great deal to organise conferences, including conferences on the World Trade Organisation, to encourage international law. That has done a great deal to bond British and Taiwanese lawyers.

Baroness Crawley

My Lords, I am very happy to welcome and acknowledge that most interesting contribution to our debate from the noble and learned Lord.

I was saying to my noble friend that I have noted his comments that other EU capitals treat the Taiwanese better than we do. If he will write to me with explicit examples, I shall be very happy to review that situation.

We have a substantial programme of unofficial visits by Ministers responsible for non-political areas. Taiwan's Minister with responsibility for education visited the UK in January 2004 with a programme to look at the UK's management of higher education and secondary schools. Other recent visits include Ministers responsible for economics, health, finance, environment and science.

Last year, Alan Johnson and Nigel Griffiths visited Taiwan to promote UK interests there. Sir David King visited Taiwan in February this year to boost our profile in major science infrastructure projects and to expand scientific and educational ties.

In common with EU partners—I have noted the strong views of the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston on the subject of EU visas—we see visits by the most senior political figures in Taiwan as inconsistent with our non-recognition policy. Such visits are looked at on a case-by-case basis.

The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked me about flights between Taipei and Shanghai. During the lunar new year in 2003 there were indirect charter flights between Taipei and Shanghai. Recently we have also seen the restoration of shipping links between the islands of Jinmen and Matsu and the mainland. Like the noble Lord, we believe that such practical measures are good ways to build confidence and help promote peaceful dialogue.

In conclusion, I hope that your Lordships will agree that UK/Taiwan relations are in excellent shape. Non-recognition imposes real constraints on what we can and cannot do. However, overall we have a strong relationship. We shall continue to work with the Taiwanese to develop and build that relationship in areas such as commerce, culture and education.

House adjourned at eight minutes before five o'clock.