[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 35 (Thursday, March 14, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2080-S2081]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           TAIWAN RESOLUTION

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, there has been some conversation here on 
the floor which I caught on my television as I went home about the so-
called Taiwan resolution.
  Since I was the one who put an objection into the unanimous-consent 
consideration of that resolution, I wanted to tell my colleagues what 
my problems were with that issue and why I object to the unanimous-
consent consideration of that resolution.
  Mr. President, with the thrust of the resolution, I have no problem. 
I do not agree, really, with all of the wording of it. But you never 
can always embrace every jot and tittle in words and mood swings. But 
with the general thrust--which is to strongly condemn the People's 
Republic of China for, in effect, saber rattling in the Strait of 
Taiwan--Mr. President, with that I have no problem.
  But, Mr. President, we have gotten into a situation where the United 
States now has two of our largest aircraft carriers in the Strait of 
Taiwan. We have the largest country in the world, one of the fastest 
growing countries in the world, soon to be the largest market in the 
world, clearly the linchpin of stability in all of Asia, and we are in 
a very dangerous situation with them.
  How in the world did we get there, Mr. President? We got there, in my 
judgment, because of the fault of the United States Congress, because 
of the fault of the People's Republic of China, because of the fault of 
this administration, and because of the fault of Taiwan and their 
President Li Teng-hui.
  The fact that this fault is shared does not diminish or ameliorate 
the fact that we have two carrier groups in the Strait of Taiwan in a 
situation that could lead, probably not to war, but, Mr. President, it 
could lead to great difficulties. It could lead to an incident--two 
ships bump in the night, a rocket goes astray and hits on Taiwanese 
territory. And there will be those in the Congress who would say, ``Let 
us go. Let us attack. Let us get the smell of grapeshot. Boy, the blood 
is running. Let us go over and fight.''
  Mr. President, we are playing with fire with the largest country in 
the world. I am old enough to remember when we egged on the people in 
Hungary to revolt. Remember those broadcasts? Some of you will 
remember. They went across the border. We wanted them to revolt, and 
they revolted. They wanted to know where the United States was, and we 
were nowhere to be found. I remember women pulling open their shirts in 
front of tanks and daring them to shoot.
  Mr. President, before we get our macho up too much, I believe we 
ought to rationally consider this question. I believe we ought to 
consider the basis of our relationships with China and with Taiwan and 
cool our rhetoric a little bit--and yes; condemn the People's Republic 
of China for what they are doing, but at the same time realize that it 
is the Shanghai Communique with its reaffirmations which was begun by 
President Richard Nixon, to the applause of Republicans, to the 
applause of Democrats, and to the applause of the country back in 1972, 
and reaffirmed by five Presidents. We have to understand that that 
communique, a one-China policy, two systems, peaceful reunification, is 
the basis of our relationship with China.
  My problem with this resolution is not that it condemns the People's 
Republic of China. for saber rattling. I agree with that. But it 
misstates, I believe, the basis of our relationship with China.
  In paragraph 5 on page 2, it says, ``Relations between the United 
States and the People's Republic of China rest upon the expectation 
that the future of Taiwan will be settled solely by peaceful means.'' 
As far as that goes, it is correct. It has always been our expectation 
that it be by peaceful means, and we ought to reaffirm that. But by 
leaving out the Shanghai Communique we are suddenly shifting ground.
  Mr. President, I believe anyone who thinks that we can shift ground 
from the Shanghai Communique, the one-China policy to which Taiwan has 
repeatedly adhered and stated that they were for, that anyone who 
thinks we can go to a two-China policy and independent Taiwan without a 
great deal of difficulty does not know anything about the Far East and 
about what is going on.
  If we are to do that, Mr. President, let us do it with our eyes wide 
open, and let us also do it with our pocketbooks wide open because here 
comes the new cold war if we are going to do that.
  That is my objection to this, Mr. President. It is a subtle shift.
  I asked the author, could we put in some words there, keep everything 
the same and just put in some words that say, in effect, we recognize 
the Shanghai Communique. The author told me he had no objection. But 
the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Helms, does, and 
other Members on that side of the aisle have objection to that. You 
see, that is the problem.
  There is an intention in this body to shift ground to retreat from 
the Shanghai Communique, to go to a subtle recognition of Taiwan as an 
independent country. That is why I voted against the visit of Li Teng-
hui to this country, Mr. President. I was the only Member of either 
body to vote against that visit. Oh, it was a sentimental return to his 
alma mater, Cornell, and we like Li Teng-hui. I met him, and I like him 
very much. I find him to be a very attractive leader. He is entitled to 
a lot of credit. He has brought Taiwan to a democratic system. It is a 
prosperous country. They do business with my State. I am for him. I 
think he is great.

  But anybody who thinks that was an innocent little visit to the old 
alma mater and that is all it was about, Mr. President, did not read 
the press. You know he promised no press conference. But they put out 
the word subtly that, ``If you reporters will be hiding behind the 
bushes when he walks around the Elipse, you just may be able to get an 
answer to your questions.''
  When he campaigns in Taiwan, he is stating things that, on the one 
hand, are ambiguous and, on the other hand, are promoting or moving his 
country in the direction of independence.
  Maybe, Mr. President, at some time this body will consider that 
question and come to a different answer. I do not think so. I think if 
we had hearings and fully considered the question, we would say that 
President Nixon was right, President Carter was right, President Ford 
was right, President Bush was right, President Reagan was right, and 
now President Clinton is right. Indeed, Taiwan was right to go along 
with the Shanghai communique.
  Mr. President, I do not propose to fight this resolution because to 
fight the resolution itself would be to indicate that I somehow have 
some approval of what the People's Republic of China is doing in the 
strait.
  I do not. I think it ought to be condemned. When Vice Foreign 
Minister Liu was here 3 days ago and the distinguished Senator from 
California and I had a luncheon for him and had a long discussion with 
10 Senators there, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Liu made it clear 
that the friendship of the United States and Taiwan is indelible, there 
should be no cause for alarm. China does not mean to go to war. But the 
United States needs to understand, Vice Minister Liu said, that 
independence for Taiwan is inadmissible, that all other issues are 
simple compared to this issue.
  I think it bears repeating every time we have a chance that we should 
not by indirection allow ourselves to get into a situation where we are 
shooting out there in the strait of Taiwan and people are scratching 
their heads and saying, ``How did we get there?''
  Now, I said the administration was at fault, and they were because 
they indicated to Foreign Minister Qian Qichen that there would be no 
visit by Li Teng-hui, and they changed, and after the Congress almost 
unanimously agreed with the resolution inviting Li Teng-hui to the 
United States we might understand that, but the Chinese, frankly, did 
not, because they had been assured, they thought, that there would be 
no such visit.
  I believe the Congress was at fault, even though I am the only one 
apparently, only one who voted that way and one of only a few who 
shared the view that I thought it was a political visit because Li 
Teng-hui treated it as a political visit, the world treated it as a 
political visit, and indeed the Foreign Relations Committee chairman 
and other members there have put in resolutions saying that we ought to 
admit

[[Page S2081]]

Taiwan to the United Nations--that is reserved only for independent 
countries--that that ought to be done.
  So, Mr. President, I do not plan to oppose this resolution, but if it 
is brought up tonight I will want to question the authors of it as to 
their intent with respect to the Shanghai communique. It is very 
important that the Shanghai communique not be departed from.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if I might ask my friend a question.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I will yield to the Senator from Georgia for a 
question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has the floor.
  Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
  Mr. NUNN. Is the Senator saying if we are going to consider a 
resolution on this sensitive subject that we ought to hear every word 
of exactly what we are doing, not do it at this hour of the night when 
people are not paying attention and understand what we say on the floor 
of the Senate?
  Sometimes we do not take it seriously but other countries do. I have 
reservations about the way this resolution is worded. It is not what is 
in it. It is what is not in it. There is not much I disagree with, but 
it leaves out the whole history of the United States relationship with 
China, how it evolved under President Nixon, what happened when we 
normalized, the Reagan communique in 1982. All of that is left out of 
it. We are all concerned about what is going on in China, but we do not 
further the cause of stability and peace in that area of the world by 
ignoring what we have agreed to, by ignoring the history of President 
Nixon's visit, by ignoring the one-China policy which was adhered to 
not only by the United States when we said that we would respect 
China's view that that was their policy but also by the people on 
Taiwan. For years that is what has brought stability and prosperity to 
that part of the world.
  If they are going to change that policy politically by Taiwan or 
certainly by military force by China, then we ought to oppose both. We 
ought to oppose it vigorously because that is going to cause turmoil in 
that part of the world for a long time to come.
  So if the Senator from Louisiana is saying let us go slow, let us do 
not pass this tonight, I am with him. I think he is absolutely right. 
We are not going to solve anything. This is more heat than it is light. 
And we need to be very careful.
  I would be glad to work with Senators on that side of the aisle in 
carefully wording and making sure we reflect the history, making sure 
we have an overall perspective, making sure we understand the U.S. 
agreements, what we have agreed to. We have not always lived up to what 
we said we were going to do either. I think we all have deep concern 
about the dangerous situation developing there. We have deep friendship 
for the people on Taiwan and deep admiration.
  So I would just ask the Senator, have I captured the essence of the 
point he is making here?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Georgia has captured 
precisely the point, precisely the point. It is not what it says. It is 
what it leaves out. It is a subtle shift of ground. It is the mood of 
abandonment of the Shanghai communique and its progeny that are the 
problem here, and I wish we would just take some time in committee, as 
the Senator from Georgia points out, to carefully word on a bipartisan 
basis a resolution that, yes, condemns the use of force in Taiwan; yes, 
reaffirms our commitment to a peaceful settlement of this problem but, 
Mr. President, one that, as the Senator from Georgia says, fully 
reveals the content of our policy with China.

  We are in this soup right now with two carrier groups in the Strait 
of Taiwan because we acted hastily and treated the visit of Li Teng-hui 
as if it were simply a visit to the alma mater. I think we realize now 
that it was a whole lot more. It has gotten us with two carrier groups 
over there. That is what led to it.
  And so, Mr. President, I say let us go slowly. I do not oppose what 
it says. But let us work it out so it truly reflects American policy.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if my colleague will yield for a question.
  Mr. LOTT. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip is recognized.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I will yield to the Senator.

                          ____________________