[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 23 (Monday, March 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1552-S1554]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    TAIWAN MOVES CLOSER TO WTO ENTRY

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to call my colleagues' 
attention to the recent conclusion of the bilateral trade negotiations 
between the United States and the Republic of China on Taiwan. I think 
it is significant because it is this event that moves Taiwan one step 
closer to entry into the World Trade Organization.
  This event has particular significance to me because I was a member 
of the Foreign Relations Committee in 1990 when Taiwan first applied 
for membership in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the 
predecessor organization to the World Trade Organization.
  Then chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Claiborne Pell, and 
I and a number of others initiated a letter to President Bush, signed 
by 13 members of the Foreign Relations Committee, urging our Government 
to support the formation of a working group on Taiwan's application to 
GATT. A similar letter to the President, initiated by then chairman of 
the Finance Committee Lloyd Bentsen and ranking Republican Bob Packwood 
was signed by 20 members of the Senate Finance Committee.
  Mr. President, I am gratified that Taiwan and the United States have 
reached this important milestone in our bilateral relationship. I also 
congratulate Taiwan for committing to adopt WTO principles at this 
time, particularly when many countries in the region are questioning 
the merits of opening doors and providing freer access to their 
domestic markets. Taiwan, once again, is serving as a model for the 
region.
  Last week, members of the Finance Committee had an opportunity to 
meet with the U.S. Trade Representative, Charlene Barshefsky, to 
discuss this

[[Page S1553]]

issue, among others. The members of the Finance Committee attending 
that meeting signed a letter to Ambassador Barshefsky congratulating 
her and the other USTR negotiators for reaching a deal that will 
dramatically open Taiwan's markets to U.S. agricultural products, 
services, and other industrial goods.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         United States Senate,

                                Washington, DC, February 26, 1998.
     Hon. Charlene Barshefsky,
     United States Trade Representative, Winder Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Ambassador Barshefsky: We write to congratulate you 
     and your team of negotiators on the successful conclusion of 
     bilateral negotiations with the Republic of China on Taiwan 
     regarding Taiwan's entry into the World Trade Organization 
     (WTO).
       We agree with your assessment that this agreement will 
     ``dramatically open Taiwan's market to U.S. agricultural 
     products, services and industrial goods.'' The agreement 
     marks an important milestone in our bilateral relationship 
     with Taiwan, this country's seventh largest trading partner 
     and the world's fourteenth largest economy. Taiwan's 
     commitment to adopt WTO principles should be applauded, 
     especially during a time when many countries in the region 
     are questioning the merit of opening doors and providing 
     freer access to their domestic markets. The United States 
     should now exercise international leadership to support 
     Taiwan's entry into the WTO at the earliest possible 
     opportunity.
       We look forward to your continued leadership on this issue.
         Frank H. Murkowski, Richard H. Bryan, Connie Mack, Bob 
           Graham, Max Baucus, Chuck Grassley, Jay Rockefeller, 
           John Breaux.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I hope that Taiwan now continues its 
forward march and finishes its two outstanding bilateral negotiations 
with the European Union and Switzerland. And I call on our 
administration to continue to show leadership on this issue.
  I am also encouraged by the leadership of the Director General of the 
World Trade Organization, Renato Ruggiero, in his recent comments that, 
``Taiwan's entry does not depend on China. The negotiations of Taiwan 
are progressing well. At the World Trade Organization we are not, 
fortunately, ruled by political principles.'' I hope the rest of the 
WTO members, the United States included, will abide by those words.
  Mr. President, I am not ignoring that Taiwan's entry into the World 
Trade Organization faces hurdles not faced by other prospective 
entries. It is well known that the People's Republic of China, which is 
not yet a member of the World Trade Organization, has indicated that 
Taiwan should not join the WTO before the PRC. The optimistic solution, 
of course, is that the PRC conclude its outstanding bilateral 
negotiations with the United States and the other countries and is 
prepared for entry at the same time. I would certainly support that 
outcome. Unfortunately, negotiations with the PRC are not proceeding 
quickly, and there is always the risk that the PRC will decide to drop 
its bid for WTO entry altogether. What happens then to Taiwan? Well, 
that isn't addressed, Mr. President.
  Fortunately, Mr. President, we are not yet faced with that situation, 
so I will not speculate on possible alternatives. But it does call to 
mind the delicate nature of the three-way relationship between the 
United States, the Republic of China on Taiwan, and the People's 
Republic of China.
  Recently, comments of Dr. Arthur Waldron, a prominent Asia scholar 
and a professor of international relations at the University of 
Pennsylvania, have been brought to my attention because of the insight 
that he offers on American policy on this triangular relationship.
  I would like to share with my colleagues some of the observations Dr. 
Waldron made at a recent forum hosted by the American Enterprise 
Institute.
  Dr. Waldron said that, ``although we have a military policy toward 
the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, we don't really have a political 
policy.'' He was referring, of course, to President Clinton's decision 
in 1996 to send a pair of aircraft carriers into the region when the 
PRC began a series of missile tests in the Taiwan Strait on the eve of 
the first direct democratic presidential elections in Taiwan.
  Waldron argues that, while the United States showed military support 
for Taiwan in 1996, there has been little discussion of a long-term 
political policy. One of the reasons he says--and I agree--is that, 
``there are all kinds of taboos around,'' particularly with regard to 
the language we use when discussing the issue. ``We have a very strong 
relationship with Taiwan, but we're not allowed to go public with it,'' 
Waldron said at last month's forum.

       We can't call them by their official name. You even look in 
     the CIA guide and it has Taiwan, and where it says ``official 
     name'', it says ``none.'' It's called the Republic of China, 
     or the Republic of China on Taiwan. Those who work for our 
     government aren't allowed to say that. I don't know why.

  Waldron believes that the American policy toward the PRC-Taiwan issue 
is based on similar problems of language. The three communiques between 
the PRC and the United States, along with the Taiwan Relations Act, 
outline the official U.S. position on the issue, which is that the 
United States supports ``peaceful reunification'' of the two sides of 
the Taiwan Strait. But in the 1970s, when the first two communiques 
were signed, it was generally thought that Taiwan would not survive on 
its own for very long. ``There was a real underestimation of the 
resilience, the capability of Taiwan and its people. There was a sense 
. . . that they would reach some sort of an agreement with the PRC, 
which would eliminate this issue,'' he says.

  Of course, that has not happened, Mr. President. And today, with the 
PRC's Communist regime still in place and Taiwan's democracy growing 
every day, it is unlikely to happen any time soon.
  Waldron calls the current situation ``the policy of denial.'' ``The 
idea is if you can get everybody in the world to say that Taiwan is no 
more than a renegade province, then somehow it will become a reality. 
Well, just having somebody say that something is so doesn't 
[necessarily] make it so,'' he said at the AEI forum.
  Waldron concluded his remarks last month with the comment that he was 
not calling for ``a sudden and dramatic change in policy.'' Instead, he 
said:

       What I am calling for is a change in the way we talk and 
     the way we think. We have to start saying to ourselves, 
     suppose that there isn't going to be this wonderful peaceful 
     unification that we've all been talking about, suppose Taiwan 
     keeps on developing the way it is, with even more legitimacy 
     in its political organizations, freer speech and independent 
     capabilities that make it impossible for anybody to compel 
     them. And suppose the PRC doesn't evolve in ways that would 
     make a solution more possible. What should we do? Let's call 
     things by their true names, and talk about real possibilities 
     and real scenarios for the future, rather than imagining that 
     somehow this problem has been solved.

  Mr. President, I found Dr. Waldron's comments refreshing. Back in 
1993, I requested a hearing on Taiwan in the Foreign Relations 
Committee on how we could update our relations with Taiwan. This 
hearing was delayed for over a year as the administration completed the 
``Taiwan Policy Review.'' That review was finally released in September 
1994. Although the administration did take some positive steps, which I 
welcomed, it left unanswered many of the inconsistencies that Dr. 
Waldron discussed.
  Further on the subject of Taiwan, Mr. President, yesterday's 
Washington Post carried yet another in what is clearly a series of 
Clinton Administration trial balloons on the subject of a Taiwan-
Beijing dialogue. This article, authored by former Assistant Secretary 
of Defense Joseph Nye, indicates the Administration is continuing to 
use third parties to increase pressure on Taiwan to return to the 
negotiating table with Beijing.
  I, for one, would welcome fruitful dialogue between Taiwan and 
Beijing, but I think we in the United States would do well to ensure 
that it takes place on mutually satisfactory terms.
  We promised Taiwan in 1979, when we withdrew recognition of the 
Republic of China, that we would never pressure Taiwan into direct 
negotiations with the communist authorities on the mainland.
  I am troubled by Dr. Nye's thesis and the whole premise of the 
messages the Administration his been sending to Taipei through former 
government officials. That is, that Taiwan should

[[Page S1554]]

hasten to sit at the negotiating table with a nuclear super power that 
refuses to renounce the use of force against Taiwan's democracy. I 
believe a renunciation of the use of force by Beijing would be an 
important demonstration of good will and would facilitate a meaningful 
dialogue so our democratic friends in Taiwan are not pressured by 
Washington to negotiate with a gun to their head.
  Further, Dr. Nye states that the United States should publicly 
announce that it will not defend Taiwan if Taiwan declare independence. 
While I agree that it is undesirable for Taiwan to declare 
independence, I think Nye's logic is backward. Do we want to encourage 
people to think that Taiwan is ripe for the picking? Our policy of 
creative ambiguity has long served U.S. interests. So has our 
demonstrated readiness to use force, as we did when we introduced the 
two carriers into the Taiwan Strait two years ago when China tried to 
intimidate the people of Taiwan on the eve of their presidential 
election. I believe we should not change this policy. The U.S. should 
continue to be prepared, under appropriate circumstances, to deploy our 
defense resources in support of democracy in Taiwan.
  Finally, Dr. Nye suggests that there is nothing but second class 
status in Taiwan's future. I do not think that the United States should 
endorse such a fate for the proud, free democratic people of Taiwan. 
With creative solutions, I hope Taiwan can assume its full and rightful 
place in international organizations. I don't think the United States 
through current officials, former officials or trial balloons should 
walk away from our support in this regard.
  As President Clinton prepares for another summit with President Jiang 
of China, I hope that he will take into consideration Dr. Waldron's 
comments and the input of interested Members of Congress who have long 
followed this issue. Taiwan is a strong democracy. It is not going to 
simply bow to coercion from China. The United States should recognize 
this and work to find a policy that will ease regional tensions and 
promote future stability in the Asia-Pacific area.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________