[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 70 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5860-S5861]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 TAIWAN

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I would like to share with my 
colleagues some developments concerning Taiwan which arose over the 
April recess.
  As my friends are well aware, the State Department has for several 
years now prohibited the President of the Republic of China on Taiwan, 
Dr. Lee Teng-hui, from entering the United States. This prohibition 
extends not only to visits in his capacity as President, but to any 
visit even as a private citizen. The official rationale for this is 
that such a visit would offend the sensitivities of the Government of 
the People's Republic of China, which lays claim to Taiwan as a 
renegade province.
  This stance is troublesome to me and many other Senators for several 
reasons. First, Taiwan has been our close friend and ally for several 
decades, and is presently our fifth largest trading partner. It is a 
moldel emerging democracy in an area not particularly known for strong 
democratic traditions. Regardless of these facts, however, we reward 
the Government of Taiwan by denying its elected officials even the most 
basic right to visit our country. The State Department policy has 
previously even been raised to the 
[[Page S5861]] ridiculous level of denying President Lee, in transit to 
another country, the ability to disembark from his aircraft during a 
stop-over in Hawaii.
  Second, as I have previously noted on the floor, the only people to 
whom the United States regularly denies entry are terrorists, convicted 
felons, and people with certain serious communicable diseases. The 
Secretary of State has admitted Yasser Arafat, whom we denounced for 
years as a terrorist thug; he has admitted Terry Adams, the leader of 
the IRA's political arm Sinn Fein--a group responsible for terrorist 
attacks throughout the United Kingdom. Few of us in the senate can 
fathom how the State Department can possible exclude President Lee--the 
democratically elected leader of a friendly country--when it has 
admitted these gentlemen, and instead add him to a list of pariahs.
  Third, the refusal to admit President Lee comes at the express behest 
of the Government of the People's Republic of China. In the almost 
slavish lengths to which the State Department has gone to honor that 
demand, it has done nothing but strengthen the perception on Capitol 
Hill that it is rushing to kowtow to Beijing. State has countered that 
the People's Republic of China has threatened grave ramifications if 
Lee were to be admitted--since the People's Republic of China claims 
Taiwan to be a province--and admitting President Lee would be 
tantamount to a country admitting Gov. Pete Wilson as the head of 
government of a sovereign independent California, thereby threatening 
the authority of the central government. Yet their own actions severely 
undercut the Department's position. The Secretary has repeatedly 
admitted his Holiness the Dalai Lama to the United States. The Dalai 
Lama purports--rightly in my view--to represent the legitimate 
Government of Tibet. Chinese troops occupied Tibet in the 1950's, 
displaced the Government and absorbed Tibet as a province--the
 Xizang Zizhiqu or Xizang Autonomous Region. Despite Beijing's warnings 
to the contrary--warnings similar to those on Taiwan--we have admitted 
the Dalai Lama. We have done this despite the fact that, like President 
Lee, the Dalai Lama claims to represent a country which the People's 
Republic of China considers to be a province. Why, then, the 
inconsistency in the State Department's position?

  Fourth, attempts by the People's Republic of China to dictate our 
immigration policy to us strike many as presumptuous. To put it in 
terms which the Government in Beijing can understand: Who we admit to 
this country under our immigration laws is strictly an internal affair 
of the United States. Mr. President, the People's Republic of China is 
continually telling us to butt out of issues they consider to be their 
internal affairs--human rights abuses, for example; they would do well 
to listen to their own advice.
  Congress has made it abundantly clear that it disapproves of the 
administration's position on this issue. Votes urging the Secretary to 
allow the visit have passed overwhelmingly in both Houses in past 
years. This year, Senate Concurrent Resolution 9 and its House 
counterpart both enjoy wide, bipartisan support. I expect that they 
will both come to a vote within the next week and pass with few, if 
any, detractors.
  There have been some signs--albeit exceedingly subtle--that the 
administration may be considering some reworking of its past positions. 
In New York City on the 17th of this month, on the occasion of the 
visit of the People's Republic of China's Foreign Minister Qian, a 
senior State Department official made certain statements which may 
provide a small glimmer of hope that the administration may be coming 
around. Mr. President, you will note from the amount of qualifying 
words that I have just used that I consider the likelihood of them 
coming around to be rather slim.
  That would be unfortunate, because I think that it would reflect an 
underestimation of the depth of the feeling in the Congress on this 
issue. Just so there is no mistaking what I believe the reaction of the 
Senate will be to a continued denial of a private visit by President 
Lee--even in the face of the two resolutions--let me point out the 
following for our friends in the administration. I have prepared 
legislation to require the Secretary to admit President Lee this year 
for a private visit, which already has seven original cosponsors. At 
least two other Senators I know of are poised to introduce similar 
legislation. Should the Secretary fail to accommodate a private visit 
by President Lee in the very near future, the three of us are prepared 
to act. I will ensure that any such legislation moves quickly through 
my subcommittee, and on to the floor.
  Mr. President, it is unfortunate that this simple issue has had to 
come to this. If the parties had simply, we could have put this behind 
us and gotten on with the more serious issues that concern us. The 
obstinance of the State Department, and the People's Republic of China, 
only serves to harden Members' attitudes and to turn their attention 
toward other, more controversial, areas such as Taiwan's participation 
in the United Nations and WTO. We would all do well to remember the 
proverbial observation that the grass that bends with the wind survives 
the storm, while the branch that remains stiff and obstinate does not.


                          ____________________