Q. Some analysts say Beijing does not want to give your party any credit in resolving cross-strait problems and prefers to wait to see if the opposition Kuomintang (Nationalist Party) wins the 2008 presidential election. Do you think that is the case?

A. Perhaps that is so, but the Beijing authorities will not get their wishes fulfilled.
If they pin all their hopes on Mayor Ma (Kuomintang chairman) winning administrative power for the opposition in 2008, then I must very clearly tell the Beijing authorities that they cannot succeed.
From past experience, any presidential candidate not supported by Beijing authorities wins the election.


Q. With Beijing talking to opposition parties but ignoring you and your administration, what can you do?

 

A. Beijing authorities have said on the Taiwan issue that they want to strive for dialogue and not fear delays.
But I want to say today that we will take the most beneficial stance for Taiwan's 23 million people. I want to revise that statement. I want to strive for delays while not fearing talks.
In handling cross-strait issues, we must insist on reconciliation without flinching, and we should hold a firm stance without becoming confrontational."
For China, the "one China" principle does not allow room for individual interpretation. So to accept the "one China" principle is to give up on Taiwan sovereignty and turn Taiwan into a part of China, into a local government of the People's Republic of China, or its Special Administrative Region. This is not reconciliation, this is not dialogue, this is surrender.


Q. Do you want Taiwan to be independent or the status

A. Taiwan is a sovereign, independent country and its official title is the Republic of China. Any changes to the future of Taiwan must have the consent of Taiwan's 23 million people and must be decided through a referendum.
Whether we are called Taiwan or the Republic of China, we are a sovereign, independent country and that is a fact that shouldn't be refuted.


Q. Taiwan is not recognized by the United Nations. China has declared that Taiwan independence can be cause for war. Are you not being deliberately provocative?

A. It's a reality. It's the status quo. If we do not ourselves acknowledge that we are a sovereign, independent country, if even we don't have confidence in Taiwan being a sovereign, independent country, how can we seek support from the world?
There is a pervasive misconception in the international community that everything China does is correct. But we have to ask: China's passage of the so-called anti-secession law to use non-peaceful measures against Taiwan, China's deployment of over 700 ballistic missiles at Taiwan -- are these correct?


Q. Are you worried about the opposition's blocking of the $11 billion special arms budget in parliament?

A. One of the main reasons they have opposed the military procurement budget is that they took an opposition stance against me personally and therefore they refuse to support anything, any issue that is proposed or followed through by myself.
Another reason is they want to please the Chinese authorities. They want to do them a favor. Because the Beijing authority is against the military procurement and our opposition leaders have echoed their stance on this matter.
In light of the end-year elections, the KMT and the People First Party must cooperate to win elections. Therefore it will be very difficult to have any discussion on military procurement budget in the meantime.


Q: What do you want your legacy to be when you leave office?

A: There are three things I insist on.
I will insist on democratic reform and this will not waver.
I will insist on putting Taiwan first and Taiwan national identity first, this stance will not not change.
I will insist on fulfilling the vision and aspiration I have for Taiwan, and this is to make Taiwan a normal, complete, progressive, peaceful and great country.
The Republic of China on Taiwan and the People's Republic of China on the mainland are not the same. They are under divided rule and do not exercise jurisdiction on each other.

(Writing by Tiffany Wu in Taipei)
Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.

编者注: 陈水扁的答问原为中文，此处是路透社提供的英文翻译。

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: September 8, 2005

BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) -- A U.S. border officer was acquitted Thursday of violating a Chinese tourist's civil rights when he pushed her head into the pavement and pepper-sprayed her at the U.S.-Canada border.

     Government prosecutors claimed Homeland Security officer Robert Rhodes used excessive force against Zhao Yan, 38, a businesswoman from Tianjin who was touring Niagara Falls in July 2004.

     Rhodes told investigators he believed the woman might have been associated with a drug suspect and ordered her inside the Niagara Falls inspection station, but she took off running.

     He said he followed proper Customs and Border Protection procedure in subduing the struggling woman and denied striking her or slamming her face to the ground by her hair.

    ''I feel that I was vindicated and now I can put my life back together,'' Rhodes said at his attorney's office after leaving the courthouse under the protection of federal marshals. Defense attorney Steven Cohen said Rhodes had received death threats.

     The case provoked anger in China after pictures of Zhao, her face swollen from pepper spray and her eyes and forehead bruised, were widely published.

     Defense attorney Steven Cohen accused the U.S. government of prosecuting Rhodes to protect delicate U.S.-Chinese relations, and said Rhodes was an easy target because he was openly gay and had complained about discrimination on the job.

     Despite that, Cohen said, Rhodes would like to return to the job he has held for 17 years. ''Rob is a patriot and he loves this country,'' the lawyer said Thursday.

     Zhao, who testified during the trial and is pursuing a $10 million lawsuit against the U.S. government, was not in the courtroom for the verdict. An attorney representing her in the civil case said Thursday's verdict would have no impact on the lawsuit.

     ''It's always difficult to convict any officer of the law in this kind of case,'' Stanley Legan said.

     He said the standards of proof are different in civil cases and suggested the jurors in the criminal case may have been influenced by the tense atmosphere after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

    ''I think her injuries clearly demonstrate that excessive force was used,'' Legan said.

     Cohen said he believed the jury was swayed by the testimony of two of Rhodes' fellow border officers who took the stand against him. Although both were critical of the level of force Rhodes used, they indicated Zhao was resisting arrest. Rhodes could have faced up to 10 years in prison if convicted.

 

从美联社报道可以看到，陪审团判定Robert Rhodes无罪，很大程度上是Rhodes的两位同僚证明赵燕当时拒捕，以及受到911後反恐紧张气氛的影响。国内媒体对赵燕案审判的报道基本沿用美国媒体的新闻， 并无作过多的书写和感情描述。有意思的事，如此受关注的新闻只发布不到一天的时间，就从各门户网站的新闻首页上消失，个中原因的确是颇具玩味。

 

9月4日文