American Congressman James Leach(L) and Yong Tang, People's Daily Washington-based correspondent

James Leach is the Chairman of the US House International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. As one of the most experienced and influential congressmen on the Capitol Hill, Leach has been to China four times and deeply impressed by dramatic changes in China over the last twenty years. During a recent interview with People's Daily in his office, Leach said US does not favor Taiwan independence. He also said building a new countryside is a very important undertaking for China. In his view, the Chinese American relation is going to be the most important relationship in this century. So he expects that Chinese President Hu Jintao will be warmly received during his forthcoming visit to the United States of America.

About Taiwan

Correspondent: Taiwan leader Chen Shui-bian has announced that the "National Unification Council" shall "cease to function" and the "National Unification Guidelines" shall "cease to apply." What is your comment on his move?

Leach: The US has a very strong concern for the status quo. We have been actively dedicated to ensuring the consistency of this policy. We do not favor Taiwan independence. To assert any other position would cause a rupture in international relations and great difficulties between all parties. And I think Taiwanese people would suffer immeasurably. Therefore we believe the status quo makes much more sense. We want a peaceful resolution of this issue. We want it based on a discourse between Taiwanese people and people on the mainland. The position of the United States, since the initial communiqu�� of President Nixon and subsequent communiqu��s, is one China. That has been a consistent decision of this administration and all prior administrations since President Nixon.

Correspondent: Do you think Chen Shui-bian's move is a provocation to the status quo across the strait and a grave step toward independence?

Leach: I think we have to be very careful not to take steps that may look imperfect and exaggerate their importance. The U.S. is cautioning President Chen very much. We are suggesting that his commitment on the status of Taiwan not be changed. This particular sort of articulation has a danger of causing escalating reactions on the mainland and as well as on Taiwan. So we are saying let's maintain the status quo and interpret recent actions in as restrained a way as possible. President Chen and his colleagues appear to have made some statements indicating that their decision has not been well understood. We are suggesting that they should clarify them to make clear that there has been no change in the commitments he made at the time of inauguration.

Correspondent: Under the pressure from the Bush administration Chen Shui-bian had to choose the word cease to function instead of abolish. But after his announcement, his cabinet members said cease to function means abolish. Do you think there is a difference between the two words? How do you comment on this word game?

Leach: I think there is a slight distinction between the two conceptions of cease to function and abolish. It is important to understand that cease to function is preferable to abolish. Taiwanese authorities have now suggested that there were perhaps misinterpretations of its officials when they said cease to function means to abolish. Whether they were misquoted or not, I don't know. But I do know there is a major effort to get back to the verbiage of cease to function. Speaking personally, I believe we ought to get back to the status ante. But cease to function is preferable than abolish.

Correspondent: Do you think the reaction of the Bush Administration is a moderate one and was taken in by Chen Shui-bian into a word game?

Leach: I don't think the administration was taken in by any word game. I am confident that it is taking this issue very seriously. Instructions are going out to make it very clear to the administration in Taiwan the United States definitively opposes independence. We believe that word games would be a mistake at this time. That message has been given very strongly and consistently at high levels.

Correspondent: Do you think there is a real risk that Chen might take more bold steps toward independence if US and China reacts too mildly and softly?

Leach: I can't speak for Chen Shui-bian. I can offer a Congressional perspective on the United States. The US government has been very consistent and very firm. I think it is very proper to suggest that no step should be taken that is inconsistent with the United States perspective on this issue. Our perspective is that China is one country that includes Taiwan and there is no case for independence. We want issues between the Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to be resolved peacefully through mutual dialogue. We would encourage both sides to talk to each other.

Correspondent: John Warner is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services. According to the media, during a Committee hearing on March 7, Mr. Warner expressed his strong disappointment with Chen Shui-bian's decision. He said that given the provocation from Chen Shui-bian, he is not sure if America would support Taiwan in case of a conflict between the straits. What is your opinion about this?

Leach: This is an issue the US has to express with great caution to the leadership on Taiwan. We want no change in the status of Taiwan based on coercion or use of force. We never envisioned Taiwan would be the precipitating the country. If Taiwan precipitated a change in the status quo, that would cause a great re-thinking in the executive branch.

Correspondent: Do you think it is appropriate for US to still sell advanced arms to Taiwan?

Leach: We have a long-standing commitment to Taiwan to keep a balance so that they will not be in a position to be coerced. There are judgmental factors that go into this issue at any given point in time. I am confident Washington would feel comfortable in not supplying significant weapons to Taiwan if there is not a build-up on the mainland side of the straits. We would argue this is a good time for all sides to de-emphasize the military and emphasize the dialogue.

About Two Sessions

Correspondent: We have two important meetings currently being held in Beijing. One is The Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference(CPPCC) plenary session. Another is the National People's Congress (NPC) annual session. Have you paid any attention to the two meetings?

Leach: Both of these important meetings are principally about Chinese internal affairs. I am very cautious to comment on that. The US doesn't generally comment upon issues of this character.

Correspondent: So far do you have any contact with your Chinese counterparts or top Chinese legislators?

Leach: Not much. I wish we had more. It would be very helpful. But we don't have a lot of discussions. I will give you one example. A decade ago I had a good discussion with Deng Xiaoping's daughter when she visited Washington during her book tour about her father. We had dinner one night at the Chinese embassy. We talked a lot about Chinese affairs, actually very personal affairs. Personal in sense of where she lived and what she thought of her father. She was a legislator and she represented the army. But that was an exception; we have relatively few contacts of that nature now with Chinese legislators. When I visit China, I see people from the executive branch. I would meet with President Hu or Premier Wen, and meet with ministers ranging from culture, foreign affairs to economics. For whatever reason, we don't normally meet with legislators.

There isn't a history of legislative exchanges as with some other countries. We have active legislative interchanges with other countries. We also have larger groupings for other countries. For example, we have Parliamentarians for Global Action. There is another group that embraces NATO countries. There is a formal exchange with European legislators. So there are various legislative groupings where legislators meet with. But perhaps there hasn't been concerted enough effort between China and the United States. I think that would be very helpful. I think good dialogue could commence with that.

Correspondent: The rural areas are lagging far behind the big cities in China. Recently China has set a goal of building a new countryside. Do you have any comment on this new strategy?

Leach: I think it's a very important undertaking for China. We are all aware of the enormous progress in areas like Shanghai, Hong Kong and Beijing. We have all learnt that other areas don't have quite the same progress. So it is hard to have a society where the inequality is great. This is a great evolution China is undergoing. It is one of the reasons why your leadership sets this goal.

Correspondent: American media even say that it is a Chinese equivalent of Roosevelt's New Deal.

Leach: All societies go through transitions. The United States has gone through a number of transitions. I come from a agricultural state (Iowa). During 19th century half of Americans farmed. Today there are far fewer people on the farm and agriculture plays a smaller role in society. Less than one percent produce 94 percent of American production. That is a transition which is just gigantic. We are also undergoing a transition on basic industry today. We are seeing more and more basic industries sent to other parts of the world. I would simply say that inequality is one of the great concerns of all people in the world. One of the great challenges is to develop an economic system in which nobody is left out. That is a problem in our society where we've seen generally in the 20th century everybody rise but increasingly there is a greater division between quite well-to-do and less well-to-do. So China is not alone in this difficulty. If you look at Latin America, the wealth inequality is much bigger. In Europe unemployment is a significant problem.

Correspondent: Some experts say the strategy of building a new countryside is not only good for China but also for America. Some congressmen are criticizing us that China is exporting too much to US. If our farmers could become richer than ever before, we could sell more goods to our farmers than simply export to US. Do you think so?

Leach: Only time will tell. But in general there is an assumption in the United States that it is good for all countries to prosper. If the prosperity is shared, the world would be better off. The United States favors prosperity. We believe that the more prosperous China is, not only China will sell goods internally but will purchase from the United States just like we purchase from China. That presents the best basis for peaceful political relations as well.

Correspondent: It is a kind of win-win relations.

Leach: Yeah, that will be a goal for everybody.

About State Visit

Correspondent: Chinese President Hu Jintao will visit the United States of America very soon. This will be his first state visit to America since he became Chinese President. What do you expect from the visit?

Leach: I expect the most important aspect will be that he will be warmly received. I know it is a goal of the executive branch. I think it is also a goal of Congress. I would expect there will be differences expressed. I would expect there will be commonality expressed. So you will have a combination of frankness and mutual interest that would be advanced. I would expect this administration to make very clear views on Taiwan. I would expect this administration to make very clear concerns on trade issues. I would also expect, most importantly, there will be clear expression that the United States wants to have a warm and long-term relationship with China. It is my own view that the Chinese American relation is going to be the most important relationship in this century. As the most important relationship, it is awfully important that we have a continual process of mutual exchanges and mutual understanding. We have a process in which each side can listen frankly to the other in all times. And that should be in many different levels. It should be at the level of government. It should be the level of private sector. It should be the level of cultural sectors. I am a very strong believer in culture. I think culture is more powerful than politics. If you respect a culture, you have fewer political differences. So it is very important that you combine everything together.

I am also very convinced that individuals and societies could have weakness and strengths. Sometimes there can be issues of misunderstanding that can escalate to get out of control. That is one of the reasons why leaders should have mutual exchanges, because when one of the issues pops up unexpected and unplanned they have to be able to talk with each other. They have to be able to talk things out so something doesn't get out of hand.

One example is that no one in Beijing and no one in Washington looked forward to Chen Shui-bian making the statement but he did. So it is very important for both sides not to exaggerate the difficulties, because they are manageable. We can manage together. It is nothing which should get out of hand.

For example you could very easily talk to a member of Congress on Capitol Hill who has very different views from those I might have, or those the President might have. And that could be exaggerated. That view could cause someone in Beijing to say all American congressmen think one way. That could be a very awkward view. So it is very important we talk these things through. Likewise American public officials should not think just because some Beijing officials or some Taiwanese officials say something it represents the view of everyone in government or society.

Correspondent: Frankly speaking the anti-China sentiment on the Capitol Hill is still rather strong despite some current improvement. What roles can the Congress play in encouraging American people to understand and view China more objectively and rationally?

Leach: I think it is important for Congress to reflect honest differences and at the same time recognize the long-term mutuality of interests. For example it is an honest difference that we are concerned with IPR issues. China is obliged to abide by international law. But it would be a mistake to say those differences are shaping the entire view of relations with China. So it is important that you put differences in perspective. So those of us on Capitol Hill will have some differences but hopefully we will also have a view of big picture.

Most of all there should be a reflection of respect for China's history, for China's culture and for China's dilemmas. The Chinese government has a real challenge in creating an economic tide that raises all boats and provides economic opportunities for all citizens. American government has a real challenge to give American citizens economic opportunities. Sometimes that comes into conflict. Sometimes it is mutual advantage. We have to discuss back and forth how both sides could have mutual advantages. One way or the other the difficulties are going to be very awkward. That would be the case if you have an economic downturn in either country. As you know, China has to take care of many Chinese moving into the work force partly through birth partly through transition from agriculture to industrial society. You have to create a certain number of jobs every year. By the same token, if the United States's unemployment skyrocketed, all societies tend toward protectionism. Protectionism can be very disadvantageous to everybody.

About China Trip

Correspondent: Congressman, have you ever been to China?

Leach: Oh, yes. My first trip to China was in 1979 before you were born. (Laugh)

Correspondent: It is a year of opening up and reform.

Leach: Yes. I was part of official delegation at the normalization-or-relations ceremony. I met Deng Xiaoping at that time. If you have a historical perspective, it is likely Deng Xiaoping will be considered as one of the half dozen most important figures of the 20th century in the world, not just China. So it is very important that China's economic reform is really set in place by Deng Xiaoping. One of the aspects of the current leaders in Beijing that I am impressed with is a clear decision to emphasize above all economic advancement. I think that makes sense. Chinese leadership is clearly, exceptionally rational on this judgment. From the outside perspective clearly (China has )a very intelligent leadership at this time. That is something we Americans really respect.

Correspondent: When did you visit China again after 1979?

Leach: I have been to China four times. Last time I visited China was in August and September 2005.

Correspondent: So you might see dramatic changes in China?

Leach: I have seen dramatic changes in China.

Correspondent: Where have you visited?

Leach: I have been to Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong. I have been to the countryside to visit the Great Wall. Some of your older historical landmarks. As a member of congress, one of the unfortunate aspects of our job are extraordinary time constraints. We have obligations toward our constituencies. That makes long distance traveling very difficult. In some ways I look forward to having more time to visit outside the cities.

Correspondent: Next time when you visit China I wish they could invite you to visit my hometown.

Leach: Where is your hometown?

Correspondent: Sichuan Province, the birthplace of Giant Panda.

Leach: Oh, the Panda thing! (Laugh).

Correspondent: And Deng Xiaoping is also my fellow villager.

Leach: How big is your village?

Correspondent: It is a small village. The scenery is quite beautiful but the living standard is still lagging far behind the cities.

Leach: Oh, I would love to visit. Do you have a shrine to Deng Xiaoping?

Correspondent: Not my family. I have seen some other families who put the portrait of Deng Xiaoping on the wall.

Leach: One of my favorite conservations is with his daughter. I said where do you live? She said of course I live with my father. For some reason I smiled and I said I assume he is the head of the household. She responded no. And I asked, who is the head of the household? And she said his stepmother. I like the imagery that the head of the country is not the head of his own household. I thought that is a wonderful image.

Correspondent: Do you have any personal impression on Deng Xiaoping?

Leach: I met him in 1979. My impression from that meeting was that he was a commanding presence and spoke with confidence and clarity. At this very particular and very important moment, he was in complete command of what he was doing. American delegations had some very impressive members and some members who were less impressive. Some less impressive members made some unimpressive statements. He should have taken greater offence, but he handled them very well without taking offence. He was very calm. I was quite impressed by him.

Correspondent: What is your plan for the next trip to China?

Leach: I don't have a precise plan.

About the Port Deal

Correspondent: My sense is that it is becoming more and more difficult for America to balance between national security and business interest. This is true with high trade deficit with China. It is also true with the port deal which was just killed by the Congress. How do you think of this trend?

Leach: This is a balancing concern all the legislators and the government always have to deal with. We are at a very difficult time. This is a time frame in which America is challenged in the way we have never been challenged. It is a learning process. We all learn from each other. Clearly we have to do certain things. One of the great questions is, do you learn and you adapt from what works and do you learn and adapt from what maybe mistaken? We are all thinking this through. Intriguingly, other countries could observe and learn from our example. If we do things well, other countries may say, that is where we should learn from. If we do things less well, other countries may say, that is the thing we could try to avoid.

As we go through this process in the world in which anarchy is growing and a very few people could cause rather large damage. It seems to me the sentiments toward nationalism are still extremely strong. This may apply to the political protectionism in America.

Correspondent: So does that mean so far American decision makers don't have a clear strategy to deal with the balance issue? Just like China, America is crossing the river by touching out the stones?

Leach: That is a judgment you may have. I could possibly share in some ways. But I don't want to get into great differences with my own government.

Correspondent: The killed port deal may lead to increased anti-American sentiment in Arabic world?

Leach: This is possible. After the advantages and disadvantages to circumstances of this nature, only time will tell.

Correspondent: Thank you for the interview, congressman.

By Yong Tang, Washington-based correspondent of People's Daily