76 years old but looking not more than 60, Andrew Wang is the mysterious man of the frigates of Taiwan case. With sharp eyes and black hair, the former representative of the company Thomson / CSF in Taiwan, the man who, at the beginning of the 1990s, convinced the nationalist island to buy French warships, and who left it in December 1993 without ever since going back then, has often been presented as the central character of this sulfurous case. Taiwan has a grudge against him: warrants for arrest are still running for violation of the military secrets, corruption, and even for his supposed role - which he vehemently denies - in the death of Captain Yin Chin-feng, found drowned on December 9, 1993.

A few weeks ago, Le Point contacted him, because his name had been placed in the fore by the "crow" of the Clearstream case (see Le Point no. 1660). He has accepted to meet us under the condition that the interview contained no photographs. The meeting was held at the end of August in a large capital city, in a large hotel. Speaking in English without any fuss, with a very Asian courtesy, Wang had things to say: the conversation lasted 9 hours, without interruption … In its centre was the frigates case. But he also spoke about his childhood in a rich family of merchants and shipowners in the South of China, where he was born in 1928, about the Japanese invasion and his flight to Nankin, about his practice of the Buddhist cult, about his attraction for modern techniques and about his admission to a school of communications and electronics of the Airforce.

And also about his departure for Taiwan (which was still named Formosa) in 1949, where a part of the army had followed Tchang Kai-chek to avoid coming under the yoke of Mao Zedong, and then about his career as an officer – engineer for radars for fighters before the creation of his own electronics firm in the 1960's and his commitments as a successful representative of foreign companies. Finally, in 1979, the meeting with the managers of Thomson/ CSF and the beginning of his business in the military materials import.

Let's go back to the cases. The Swiss proceedings have led to the freezing of numerous banking accounts belonging to him, in which there are approximately 500 million US Dollars. In parallel, several months ago Taiwan and Thales, the new name of Thomson/CSF, have initiated an arbitration under the international Chamber of Commerce of Paris, in which the focus is on the remuneration received by this intermediary for the contract of the frigates. Taiwan assesses these amounts at US Dollars 500 millions, the equivalent of the frozen accounts, and considers them as unjustified. But the Taiwanese government goes further, considering that these amounts could have been used to bribe officials in Taiwan or in Pekin. Perhaps even to pay retrocommissions in France, which is equally illegal.

In May, the Federal Tribunal of Lausanne, the highest judicial Court of the country, accepted that the documents related to the frigates case collected by the investigating magistrate Paul Perraudin be transmitted to France. But the Swiss Government still has to agree to this transmission within the scope of judicial cooperation between the two countries.

Wang considers that the agreements between Paris and Berne on the protection of defence secrets prevent the transmission of these documents. He considers that Taiwan is also not entitled to claim the communication, which as a matter of fact has not been decided by the judicial authorities. However, a first technical step has been made in this direction, for which Taiwan, which does not exist as a sovereign State in the international scene, have already gained a big diplomatic advantage.

Wang stakes are high, more than 13 years after the agreement of Mitterrand to sell the six Lafayette frigates. He remains the key in the case. He swears that he has not engaged in bribery, that his remuneration is in line with his commercial role and that Taiwan is severely mistreating the man who has allowed them for the first time to receive modern armaments and to partially release the American stranglehold. Efficient trademan, yes. Scapegoat, no ……

Le Point: When did you become the representative of foreign companies in Taiwan?

Andrew Wang: In 1967 I became the agent of the German electronics firm Siemens, then that of Thomson in 1979. My company Cathay Enterprises was specialized in radars and navigation systems. In the 1970s and 1980s, much infrastructure equipment was acquired by the intermediary of foreign companies.

At this time, Taiwan wished to modernise its military equipment. In what way, in your opinion, was this evolution justified?

Many countries only have a one China policy. This makes them reluctant to sell Taiwan defence equipment. Therefore Taiwan could only equip itself with military equipment through the USA. On 17 August 1982 the United States signed an agreement with China to reduce the supplies of military equipments to Taiwan . Consequently, Taiwan could not even find spare parts for its aircrafts and battleships. Civilian companies were sought out by the Government, with instructions discretely to find equipment abroad. For fear of Chinese protests, the purchases had to be presented as civil acquisitions. Before the end of the 1970s, the government of Taiwan did not have the means to purchase modern equipment. And then the economic situation changed, and it became possible to envisage acquisitions.

For example, the new frigates?

They were necessary. The Americans did not want to sell Taiwan higher performance military ships. The Taiwanese Navy turned to Korean shipyards. A number of politicians favoured this solution and, at the end of the 1980s, intense negotiations were proceeding to purchase these ships constructed according to old American plans, for which the principal armaments and electronic systems were to come from the US.

Why was the purchase of French ships preferable?

Because these ships were the best in the world! They reinforced the security of Taiwan in a significant way. The contract would be a real opportunity for both countries. In this way, Taiwan would open its doors in Europe with a diplomatic success, while counterbalancing the American domination of its military market. As regards France, it ran the serious risk of offending China and losing future contracts there. From this point of view alone, it was reasonable that the companies of the French State seek to obtain a rate , which included this risk taking. That is the law of the market. It should not be forgotten that the French military budgets were being reduced after the end of the cold war, and that naval shipyards in Lorient were being threatened with closing with thousands of job losses, and that the company Thomson needed contracts. When the French party first contacted the Taiwanese navy to ask whether the navy wished to purchase the frigates it received the answer that nothing of this nature was expected. At this time, Taiwan Navy was about to conclude the contract to purchase Korean ships already!

But the Taiwanese government complained that, between the first prices invoked by the French party in October 1989, that is FF 11 billion for six frigates, and the final price paid by Taiwan, that is FF 15,6 billion, the difference is enormous. And it suspects that the difference is in large part constituted by the price of corruption.

One cannot say that. The final contract was carefully examined for many months by dozens of admirals and officers from Navy and Ministry of Defence, numerous lawyers, and independent experts in Taiwan. The price was negotiated and reduced 7 times. To allege that the price was too high 10 years after signature is rather curious. Secondly, the October 89 price invoked was that of the Lafayette ships for the French navy. However, the models sold to Taiwan were of different specifications: they can carry 800 tons of equipment and arms while the French ships only can do half of that. They have several very advanced sonar equipments while the French ships haven’t . In addition, Taiwan frigates have several additional and more advanced radar equipments than the French frigates. The Taiwanese ships have a very strong anti-submarine and anti-surface, and certain anti-air capabilities while the French ships are specialized in anti-surface combat alone. We should compare things that are comparable! These can all be proved by Jane’s Report and Flottes de Combat 2002. . In reality, only the next proposal in Dec 89 was for the Taiwan version of the Lafayette and was a much more appropriate basis for comparison. The difference in price between Dec 1989 (FF 13.25 billion for six frigates built in France) and June 1993 (FF 15.89 billion for six frigates built in France) is only 19%, of which more than half is due to inflation. Saudi Arabia also purchased Lafayette ships and paid for them a price much higher than the one Taiwan paid. This signifies that not all La Fayettes are identical and that they cannot all cost the same amount.

No doubt. But why is Taiwan still preparing to purchase US ships for much more than their price?

Three years ago President George W. Bush promised to help Taiwan acquire conventional submarines from third countries, since the US no longer manufactured them. But the most powerful person on the planet was not able to bring this about. The only possibility was to acquire these ships from the US, which would restart a production chain to produce submarines of a 1950s model. According to statements by Taiwan congressmen in the media, each ship will be sold between 300% and 500% above the market price. The feasibility studies alone would be billed at 300 million US dollars! The new Taiwanese government which alleged corruption although the increase in the price of the French frigates was legitimate is attempting today to justify the price of the US submarines. What will happen when the next new government comes to power?

According to documents sent to the Swiss judicial authorities by Taiwan, commission was paid. Is that exact?

Defence secrecy, declared by the French government, surrounding the defence contracts, prevents me from confirming, denying or making any comment on any defence contracts. However, I observe that under Taiwanese law, it absolutely not illegal for an intermediary to be paid. French law does not prohibit this either. It is an undeniable fact that the gap between the Taiwanese purchasers and the European sellers was considerable. The intermediaries were, and are still today indispensable.

The Taiwanese judicial authorities are, however, accusing you of having corrupted members of the Navy. Was a naval officer, Kuo Li-Heng not convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in October 1994 for having received $ 300'000.- from you, in connection with the frigates?

In Taiwan this is a very political matter. Under intense political pressure innocent people have been pursued with great pressure, and even convicted. I have known Kuo Li-Heng for a long time, and he is a friend. The accusations against him rest upon so-called confessions obtained, it is said, under torture and upon 29 receipts discovered in the offices of Thomson in Taiwan. In the course of the year 2002, the Yuan Control (1) proved that these receipts related to simple operating expenses of the Thomson office in Taipei, and had absolutely nothing to do with Kuo or any corruption.

In 2000, the Taiwanese judicial authorities issued against you an international arrest warrant for "corruption, violation of military secrets and murder", the last of which concerned the assassination of Captain Yin Chin-Feng on 9 December 1993. What do you say about this?

Since these arrest warrants are not in conformity with Taiwanese law they have no value. The military secrecy law was stipulated during the martial law period, which was abolished in January 2004. Initially, the Taiwanese authorities tried to use ‘ violation of military secrects’ to demanded of the US that they extradite me but they received the reply that this demand would be refused unless the accusation was more serious, for example by the invocation of a murder. That’s why they invented the allegation of murder and issued the illegal murder warrant. Even so, the United States did not accede. As regards Captain Yin, I would refer to official documents to specify that he was never linked to the frigates sale. He was transferred to NAWANO (Navy Weaponry Acquisition Management Office) in April/May 1993, two years after the signature of the contract, at a time when 60% of the payments had been made. Yin was going to be promoted to admiral but was affected by malicious anonymous letters sent to the President and to Yin’s superior, by rumours , as well as by pressure from above and by agents representing armament firms, more precisely by one of those which represnted spare parts for German mine hunters.

So do you think it is from that angle that the reasons for the assassination should be sought?

According to the many media reports, it is well believed Yin murder could be related to the series of events happened before his death, which has nothing to do with the Lafayette affair. The German agent demanded that the Captain bring her a response regarding this contract during a meeting on 9 December, the day of his death. The day before, Yin had visited several arms dealers, all naval officers in retirement, and had secretly recorded their conversations. The tapes were discovered after his death, and for safety transferred to a military judge. However it was later found that they had been erased. After Yin’s death, numerous agents left Taiwan very quickly, and the German agent left the day after Yin’s death. According to rumours, I too had left Taiwan the next day. That is false. I left Taiwan on 20 December, 11 days after Yin’s death, to visit my children in California for Christmas, as official records prove. So many vexations have occurred since I was forced to reside abroad from that date. Around the time of the Dumas trial, Roger Hsieh, who was the President’s advisor and that of the Minister of Justice, publicly spread rumors in France and Taiwan, accusing me and one Thomson former employee of murdering Captain Yin. I filed a complaint against him. But the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Taiwan attempted to prohibit me from defending myself by revoking my legalized power of attorney to appoint a legal counsel, stating officially such an actionwould be “contrary to the national interest”. Furthermore, they have ordered all overseas offices not to provide any legalization for me, a requirement under Taiwan law to appoint an attorney in Taiwan: I have been deprived of my legal rights.

Numerous other deaths appeared to be linked to this contract. What is your opinion on this point?

I do not see in what way the Lafayette contract could have the slightest link with these deaths. I knew Jean-Claude Albessard well, who is rumoured to have been assassinated. But he had had cancer for more than six years, and he died of natural causes in a Parisian hospital in 2000, 10 years after the signing of the contract. The death of Mr Jacques Morisson was investigated by the French police, who considered it not to be suspicious . As far as Mr Thierry Imbot is concerned, I had never heard of him before his death. Any link between his death and the frigates seems improbable to me. None of these persons occupied an important position, which could hypothetically have explained a violent death; you are invoking a conspiracy theory which makes no sense.

There is an arbitration currently between Taiwan and Thales (2), in which you appear to be an important figure. What do you think of this?

The contract was approved by the French and Taiwanese heads of State. I do not wish to be the escape goat in a commercial dispute concerning strictly these two countries, which should be dealt with in a civilised manner. It is unacceptable that one of the parties should employ calumny for the sole purposes of transforming a commercial dispute into a criminal matter; in accusing me, as well as Thomson and even the French State of odious crimes, Taiwan intends above all to win the arbitration underway, and to demand the transfer of evidence from the investigation before the Swiss investigating judge (3), by alleging that they contain evidence of the payment of retro-commissions. Unfortunately, the Taiwanese party has furnished erroneous assertions in support of its demands, as well as a false translation and an indictment document that has been tampered with. All of this was done in order to lead the Swiss judicial authorities to believe that a key decision-maker in the frigates affair, Admiral Yeh, had been incriminated in this affair and that naval officers had received commissions. In fact, Admiral Yeh was never incriminated in the frigate affair and no officers were proved to receive bribery for the frigate sale. In Taiwan it is hoped to obtain from Switzerland the “evidence” that is missing in order to make France lose the arbitration, which would represent a considerable victory for certain Taiwanese politicians.

Therefore you do not think judicious the transmission of these documents on which the Swiss government must still adopt a position, after the decision of the Federal Tribunal in support of transmission?

Mr Dumas and Mrs Deviers-Joncour declared that the commissions were paid in Taiwan and in China, and kickbacks in France, while admitting that they possess no evidence of this. After more than three years and a half of investigation in France and Switzerland, no evidence has been discovered. I observe; on the one hand, that the CCSDN (4), in France, denied the status of defence secrets to the entirety of the requests from the judicial authorities, and, on the other hand, that the treaty between France and Switzerland of 1972 considers that a defence secret applicable in France is equally applicable in Switzerland, and vice-versa.

Anonymous letters transmitted to the French judicial authorities contained "information" on the clearing institution Clearstream, and cited your name. What do you think of this?

Neither directly nor indirectly have I ever entered into any agreement or possessed any accounts with Clearstream. My attorney wrote a letter to Clearstream requesting clarification after learning the news about “the raven”, that is the anonymous letter writer. Clearstream confirmed in a letter dated 2 July 2004, specifying that it does not accept individuals as clients and I have never held any accounts with them. Indeed, except for a handful of employees of Thomson, I do not know any of these names.

http://www.lepoint.fr/economie/document.html?did=152236

[1] the Taiwanese equivalent of the Court of audits
[2] Editor’s note: the new name of Thomson/ CSF
[3] Editor’s note : Paul Perraudin
[4] Editor’s note: the highest judicial authority in Switzerland
[5] Consulting Commission on National Defence Secrets.

With acknowledgement to Le Point.