[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 13, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                E X T E N S I O N   O F   R E M A R K S


                    THE ROC'S NAME: SERIOUS BUSINESS

                                 ______


                            HON. DAN BURTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 13, 1994

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on October 25, 1971, the U.N. 
General Assembly passed Resolution 2758 shifting representation for the 
people of China from the Republic of China [ROC] headquartered on the 
island of Taiwan, to the Communist government of the People's Republic 
of China [PRC] in Beijing. Since this time, the ROC and its 21 million 
people have been treated as second class citizens in most diplomatic 
circles.
  This July, two subcommittees of the House Foreign Affairs Committee 
in the United States Congress held a joint hearing to discuss a topic 
that is receiving an increasing amount of international attention: 
Whether the Republic of China on Taiwan should be admitted to the 
United Nations. Such a hearing was long overdue. Unfortunately, one 
important point was never made: That the likelihood of securing this 
seat will remain slim until the international community starts to 
embrace the name ``Republic of China''--the ROC's official name--
instead of the name ``Taiwan.''
  In his opening remarks, Representative Tom Lantos, the chairman of 
the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, 
International Organizations and Human Rights, attempted to sidestep the 
important name question. Lantos said,

       There is a debate among the citizens of Taiwan regarding 
     whether the correct name of their country is the Republic of 
     China on Taiwan or simply Taiwan. Our purpose today is not to 
     get bogged down in internal partisan debate, but rather to 
     promote Taiwan's participation in the international system in 
     a manner that benefits both Taiwan and the international 
     community.

  Despite his initial preference to avoid the name question, Lantos 
later acknowledged its importance. He conceded,

       You cannot place a proposal before a body, whether this is 
     the Congress of the United States or the United Nations, 
     without referring to an entity by some name. So while it may 
     be an uncomfortable and awkward dilemma, it is a dilemma that 
     needs to be resolved.

  He concluded,

       The name issue has to be resolved before steps can be taken 
     to deal with the entity represented by a name.

  Like Representative Lantos, Representative Gary Ackerman, the 
chairman of the Foreign Affairs Asia and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee, 
also attempted to avoid the important name question. He remarked,

       This hearing is not intended to stake out a position on the 
     name Taiwan may eventually wish to use should it be permitted 
     to join the United Nations. Such questions are best left to 
     the people of Taiwan.

  I agree with Representative Lantos. We have to deal with the name 
question before we start plotting a strategy to get the ROC a U.N. 
seat. I also agree with Representative Ackerman. The name question 
should be left to the ROC people. What both Chairmen have missed, 
however, is that the ROC people have answered the name question. In two 
recent elections, ROC voters have kept in power the Kuomintang [KMT], a 
political party which prefers the name ``Republic of China'' and seeks 
reunification with China. Yet on both occasions, they could have voted 
for the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP], which openly endorses the 
use of the name ``Taiwan'' and advocates independence. Representative 
Lantos and Representative Ackerman ignore this reality.

  Mr. Speaker, a close look at these elections reveal that support for 
the name ``Taiwan'' and independence is marginal. On December 21, 1991, 
the KMT captured 318 seats--79 percent of the vote--in the 403-seat 
National Assembly, while the DPP captured just 75 seats. While its 
margin of victory was smaller, the KMT captured 103 seats in the 161-
seat Legislative Yuan elections the following December. The DPP 
captured 50 seats--30 percent of the vote. Robert Sutter, a specialist 
in international politics at the Congressional Research Service, 
offered an explanation for the modest DPP pickup. According to Sutter,

       Heavy publicity focused on so-called money politics and 
     related features, including vote buying.

  He added,

       Unlike in 1991, when DPP candidates strongly stressed the 
     issue of Taiwan independence, this year the opposition party 
     handled the question in a low-keyed manner.

  So, the DPP actually gained votes by avoiding the independence issue.
  According to Nat Bellochi, the chairman and managing director of the 
American Institute in Taiwan, America's equivalent of a consulate in 
Taipei,

       Over the last 3 to 4 years, polls have demonstrated that 
     the position of the majority has not changed significantly on 
     the question of independence as a feasible option.

  He also noted,

       The pragmatism of the people on Taiwan is evident in how 
     carefully they have approached the issues of independence and 
     the use of the name Taiwan. There is much more vocal support 
     for these two issues here in the Taiwanese-American 
     community, than one finds in Taiwan.

  Mr. Speaker, if the name question was a pressing topic ``among the 
citizens of Taiwan'' as Representative Lantos suggested in his opening 
remarks, then the DPP would have made this question and the 
independence issue the centerpieces of their campaign in 1992. If 
changing the Government's name from the ``Republic of China'' to 
``Taiwan'' and declaring independence were priorities for the ROC 
people, the DPP would be in power.
  While I am disappointed that few of my colleagues in Congress have 
recognized this reality, it is more disturbing that some have 
introduced resolutions which identify the ROC as ``Taiwan'' instead of 
the ``Republic of China.'' To date, seven different resolutions have 
been introduced to express Congress' support for giving the ROC 
representation at the United Nations. Unfortunately, four use the name 
``Taiwan'' instead of the ``ROC.''
  The July hearing focused considerable attention on two resolutions. 
They were House Concurrent Resolution 148 introduced by Representative 
Gerald Solomon, Republican from New York; and House Concurrent 
Resolution 166 introduced by Representative Robert Torricelli, Democrat 
from New Jersey. The Solomon resolution expresses the sense of Congress 
that ``the Republic of China on Taiwan deserves full participation, 
including a seat in the United Nations.'' It currently has 112 
cosponsors. The Torricelli resolution says only that, ``the 21 million 
people on Taiwan should be represented in the United Nations.'' It has 
98 cosponsors.
  Mr. Speaker, if the United States Congress wants to advance the ROC's 
admission to the United Nations, it should reject resolutions like 
Representative Torricelli's. While it is well-intentioned, it sends all 
the wrong signals to Beijing. By not asking for a U.N. seat, it implies 
that Congress supports other types of representation, such as U.N. 
observer status. The Palestine Liberation Organization has been 
represented at the United Nations for years, but it has never had a 
vote. The ROC does not deserve to be thrown in the same category.

  Furthermore, by using the name ``Taiwan,'' the Torricelli resolution 
creates the impression that Congress supports the independence movement 
and its supporters in the United States. Beijing has made clear that it 
will respond to any declaration of independence with military force. 
With 3 million men in its armed forces and a nuclear stockpile, this 
threat should be taken seriously. Beijing will never accept the name 
``Taiwan,'' because it is the name embraced by the independence 
advocates and it suggests that the ROC is not part of China.
  While Beijing has also objected to the use of the name ``ROC,'' it is 
clearly more acceptable to them than ``Taiwan.'' First, it does not 
challenge Beijing's assertion that the ROC is part of China. The ROC 
also supports unification. Second, ROC is no longer the nameplate of a 
government which questions Beijing's authority to rule the mainland. In 
1991, the ROC abandoned its claim to be the sole legitimate authority 
on the mainland.
  With the recent thaw in ROC-PRC relations, it is not unreasonable to 
think that Beijing may someday soften its opposition to the ``ROC'' 
name. Even if it does not, we should begin our U.N. efforts using the 
ROC name, because it has the support of their people. Lastly, its usage 
may compel Beijing to give the ROC a seat under a compromise name. 
Currently, the ROC uses the name ``Chinese-Taipei'' in the Olympics, 
``Taipei, China,'' in the Asian Development Bank, and ``Chinese 
Taipei'' in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. Each name 
suggests that the ROC on Taiwan is still part of China. The name 
``Taiwan'' does not.
  According to section 4(2) of the U.N. Charter, new members to the 
United Nations are elected by decision of the U.N. General Assembly 
upon the recommendation of the Security Council. If the ROC were to 
seek admission as a new member, using the name ``ROC'' or ``Taiwan,'' 
it would most certainly be vetoed by the Communist regime in Beijing. 
Fortunately, there is another avenue to U.N. admission. A resolution 
could be drafted which simply repeals Resolution 2758--the resolution 
which gave Beijing a seat at the United Nations--and provides dual 
representation for China. By modifying China's U.N. representation, 
instead of asking for new membership, this resolution would go directly 
to the General Assembly and escape a certain PRC veto on the Security 
Council. The ROC would get representation in the General Assembly and 
the PRC would retain its seat on the Security Council. This avenue was 
proposed by John R. Bolton, former Assistant Secretary of State for 
International Organizations from 1989 to 1993, at the July hearing.
  The real obstacle is to make ROC admission palatable to Beijing and 
dissuade it from withdrawing from the United Nations. To overcome it, 
the U.N. resolution must clearly state that China consists of both the 
mainland and the island of Taiwan. It must also state that the 
objective of providing dual representation for Beijing and the ROC is 
to facilitate the eventual reunification of their two territories, not 
prevent it. Such language would assure Beijing about U.N. intentions 
and reflect the majority opinion in the ROC. It would not, however, 
preclude the ROC from declaring independence if that course of action 
ever gained acceptance among the majority of its people.

  Mr. Speaker, the United Nations must also make a concerted effort to 
show Beijing that its own long-term interests will be served by 
allowing the ROC a place in the world community. Jason C. Hu, the 
Director General of the ROC's Government Information Office, has 
emphasized this point,

       The intransigence of the PRC in ignoring or even denying 
     the divided status of the Chinese nation serves no positive 
     purpose to the eventual reunification of the nation. In fact, 
     it creates resentment among their cousins across the straits 
     and even adds fuel to the fire for the promotion of 
     separatism which would surely bring disaster to the Chinese 
     nation.

  He added,

       * * * the PRC's understanding and sympathy on the issue 
     would in some way win the minds and hearts of the Chinese on 
     the island and foster a better atmosphere for unification.

  Mr. Speaker, today we have a small chance to reverse the sorry state 
of affairs which has existed since U.N. Resolution 2758 was passed in 
1971. Getting a majority necessary to pass a resolution which provides 
the ROC a U.N. seat will be a difficult task, but it can be done with 
strong United States leadership. Fairness dictates that we try. 
However, if we continue to push the name ``Taiwan,'' this small chance 
will certainly slip away.

                          ____________________