Lee Teng-hui Defines Cross-Strait Ties as 'Special State-to-State Relationship'

In an interview with Deutsche Welle radio on July 9, 1999, President Lee Teng-hui fundamentally redefined cross-strait relations, declaring them to be “special state-to-state relations,” abandoning decades of “one China” ambiguity and triggering a new crisis with Beijing.

The Historic Statement

Lee’s carefully prepared remarks revolutionized Taiwan’s position:

“The cross-strait relationship is a special state-to-state relationship. Since 1991, when we amended our constitution, we have defined cross-strait relations as neither internal relations between a legitimate government and a rebellious group, nor internal relations between a central government and a local government.”

Democratic Logic

Lee’s redefinition reflected Taiwan’s democratic reality:

Constitutional Basis

Democratic amendments since 1991
Government legitimacy from Taiwan voters
Sovereignty exercised independently
International law principles

Political Reality

Separate governments for 50 years
Different political systems
No jurisdictional overlap
De facto independence

Beijing’s Explosive Response

China’s authoritarian regime reacted with predictable fury:

Immediate Denunciations

Lee branded “historical criminal”
Statement called “extremely dangerous”
Military threats renewed
Cross-strait dialogue suspended

Propaganda Mobilization

State media saturation coverage
“Splittist” rhetoric intensified
Historical claims reasserted
No tolerance for dissent

Strategic Timing

Lee’s statement came at a crucial moment:

Taiwan Context

2000 presidential election approaching
DPP candidate leading polls
Public supporting clearer status
Democracy demanding honesty

International Environment

Post-Kosovo intervention world
U.S.-China relations tense
Human rights focus increasing
Democracy promotion active

Domestic Reactions

Political Spectrum

DPP: Praised courage and clarity KMT: Divided between support and concern New Party: Warned of war risks Public Opinion: 70% approval in polls

Democratic Debate

Unlike China’s uniform response:

Extensive media discussion
Academic analysis diverse
Business concerns aired
Strategic debates open

International Ripples

United States

“Surprised” and “concerned”
Reaffirmed “one China” policy
Urged restraint from both sides
Subtle support for no coercion

Regional Impact

Japan worried about stability
ASEAN called for dialogue
Europe confused by complexity
Business confidence shaken

Conceptual Revolution

The “state-to-state” formulation changed everything:

Old Framework Abandoned

No more “one China” fiction
Provincial status rejected
Civil war narrative ended
Reality acknowledged

New Paradigm

Equal political entities
Negotiation not subordination
Democratic legitimacy central
International law applicable

Beijing’s Coercive Response

Military Preparations

Missile forces activated
Amphibious units mobilized
Air force exercises increased
Invasion scenarios publicized

Economic Pressure

Investment approvals frozen
Trade restrictions threatened
Business leaders pressured
Financial warfare considered

Democracy vs. Authoritarianism

The crisis crystallized systemic differences:

Taiwan’s Transparency

Lee explained reasoning publicly
Legislature debated openly
Media analyzed freely
Voters would judge

China’s Opacity

Decision-making hidden
No public discussion
Military threats only
Authoritarian rigidity

U.S. Diplomatic Management

Dual Track Approach

Pressed Taiwan for “clarification”
Warned Beijing against force
Maintained strategic ambiguity
Prepared military contingencies

Behind Scenes

Direct presidential communications
Military deterrence signaling
Economic leverage considered
Alliance consultations intensive

Long-term Significance

Lee’s statement marked watershed:

Clarity Achieved - Ambiguity’s limits reached
Democracy Asserted - Popular sovereignty supreme
Identity Consolidated - Taiwan’s separateness affirmed
Framework Shifted - Future negotiations transformed

Media Analysis

Taiwan’s Free Press

Extensive background reporting
International law experts quoted
Strategic implications debated
Public opinion surveyed

China’s Propaganda

Uniform condemnation
No analysis permitted
War threats emphasized
Democracy attacked

Historical Impact

The “special state-to-state” formulation:

Ended Era

KMT’s “one China” orthodoxy
Civil war framework
Ambiguous status quo
Subordinate positioning

Began Period

Democratic sovereignty
Clear identity
Equal relations
Honest discourse

Lee Teng-hui’s redefinition represented democratic Taiwan’s coming of age, honestly acknowledging political reality and rejecting authoritarian China’s fictitious framework, forever changing cross-strait relations despite Beijing’s furious attempts to maintain its monopoly on defining the relationship.