[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 88 (Tuesday, July 7, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7581-S7584]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 107--AFFIRMING U.S. COMMITMENTS TO TAIWAN
Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Helms, Mr.
Lugar, Mr. Mack, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Thomas, Mr. McCain, Mr. Gramm, Mr.
Hutchinson, Mr. Bond, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Kyl, Mr.
Abraham, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Burns, Mr. Warner, Mr. Coverdell, Mr.
Faircloth, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Craig, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, and
Mr. Brownback) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:
S. Con. Res. 107
Whereas at no time since the establishment of the People's
Republic of China on October 1, 1949, has Taiwan been under
the control of the People's Republic of China;
Whereas the United States began its long, peaceful,
friendly relationship with Taiwan in 1949;
Whereas since the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act in
1979, the policy of the United States has been based on the
expectation that the future relationship between the People's
Republic of China and Taiwan would be determined by peaceful
means;
Whereas in March 1996, the People's Republic of China held
provocative military maneuvers, including missile launch
exercises in the Taiwan Strait, in an attempt to intimidate
the people of Taiwan during their historic, free and
democratic presidential election;
Whereas officials of the People's Republic of China refuse
to renounce the use of force against democratic Taiwan;
Whereas Taiwan has achieved significant political and
economic strength as one of the world's premier democracies
and as the 19th largest economy in the world;
Whereas Taiwan is the seventh largest trading partner of
the United States and imports more than twice as much
annually from the United States as does the People's Republic
of China;
Whereas no treaties exist between the People's Republic of
China and Taiwan that determine the future status of Taiwan:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That Congress--
(1) affirms its long standing commitment to Taiwan and the
people of Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act
(Public Law 96-8);
(2) affirms its expectation, consistent with the Taiwan
Relations Act, that the future of Taiwan will be determined
by peaceful means, with the consent of the people of Taiwan,
and considers any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by
other than peaceful means a threat to the peace and security
of the Western Pacific and of grave concern to the United
States;
(3) affirms its commitment, consistent with the Taiwan
Relations Act, to make available to Taiwan such defense
articles and defense services in such quantities as may be
necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-
defense capability;
(4) affirms its commitment, consistent with the Taiwan
Relations Act, that only the President and Congress shall
determine the nature and quantity of defense articles and
services for Taiwan based solely upon their judgment of the
needs of Taiwan; and
(5) urges the President of the United States to seek a
public renunciation by the People's Republic of China of any
use of force, or threat to use force, against democratic
Taiwan.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this resolution does not break new ground
with regard to Taiwan. It simply reaffirms our support of the
principles of the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. It calls on the President
to seek a Chinese renunciation of the use of force to affect Taiwan's
future.
President Clinton gave two impressive performances at Beijing
University and at the joint press conference, but I am very much
concerned about the perception of what he had to say, of what the
effect is of what he had to say with regard to Taiwan. Instead of
pressing Beijing to renounce the use of force against Taiwan, President
Clinton accepted Beijing's position on Taiwan. By ending the ambiguity
of the U.S. position, we have harmed democratic Taiwan's position.
Congress has pressed previous administrations to change its policies
with regard to Taiwan. In fact, the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 was a
clear example of congressional restraint on executive actions on
Taiwan. In 1995, we urged the President to grant a visa to Taiwan's
President to enter the U.S. for a college reunion. The administration
changed its position after Congress took that action.
This resolution is necessary to correct the effects of the statements
that were made in Shanghai. Before Shanghai, U.S. policy was to
acknowledge
[[Page S7582]]
Beijing's position. Now we have prepared to make Beijing's position our
policy.
China refuses to take the use of force off the table. We should not
unilaterally deny Taiwan membership to international organizations, and
we should not take action in concert with the dictatorship in Beijing
without even consulting the 21 million people under democratic rule in
Taiwan.
Instead of undermining Taiwan, we should support our fundamental
national interest in the peaceful resolution of differences. We do not
want to see a war in the Taiwan Straits. Deterrence is the way to avoid
such a possibility.
We should support the provision of missile defenses to Taiwan so that
they can protect their democracy from a dictatorship's missiles. We
should support Taiwan's membership in international organizations where
they are willing and able to help an organization's goals--such as free
trade and economic stability.
There is a second resolution, S. Con. Res. 30, on the issue of
Taiwan's membership in the IMF and the World Bank. It has already been
passed out of the Foreign Affairs Committee by unanimous vote. I hope
we can pass that resolution this week.
I thank Senator Torricelli and the rest of our cosponsors. I urge
other colleagues to join us because this is certainly a bipartisan
issue. I look forward to rapid Senate action on the resolution to
reaffirm our relationship with Taiwan and the primacy of the Taiwan
Relations Act.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that editorials from the Wall
Street Journal and the Washington Post be printed in the Record at this
point.
There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, July 2, 1998]
Siding With the Dictators
The outlines of a deal are beginning to emerge. China gives
President Clinton air time for his speech. Mr. Clinton says
what China wants to hear on Taiwan. Then, in classic Clinton
fashion, the White House tries to have things both ways,
denying that U.S. policy has changed when in fact it has, and
not for the better.
Past administrations recognized the Beijing government as
the legitimate government of China and ``acknowledged''
China's position with regard to Taiwan. But ``acknowledge''
did not mean ``accept.'' The ultimate fate of Taiwan was
something for Taiwan and China to work out, peacefully.
Beyond that, the United States deliberately left its policy
shrouded in ambiguity.
But recently officials of the Clinton administration have
explicitly adopted a ``three no's'' formula much more
pleasing to the Communist Chinese: no support for one Taiwan-
one China; no support for Taiwan independence; no support for
Taiwan membership in international organizations such as the
United Nations. Now Mr. Clinton has given that policy a
presidential stamp of approval--and on Chinese soil, to boot.
Why does it matter? Because Taiwan's 21 million people have
forged a prosperous democracy over the past decades. There is
no justification for the United States to oppose their right
eventually to determine their own future. It would be fine
for U.S. officials to reiterate that such a determination
must take place peacefully and to encourage Taiwan-China
dialogue. It would be fine for U.S. officials to warn Taiwan
not to expect U.S. support for a unilateral declaration of
independence. What's not fine is for the United States at
this time to rule out independence or any other option the
Taiwanese people eventually might choose.
When China threatened Taiwan militarily in 1996, Mr.
Clinton responded with admirable resolve. But now he is
trading away the human rights of Taiwan's 21 million people
and sending an unfortunate signal to other democracies that
might hope to rely on U.S. moral support.
As a practical matter, he's also significantly weakening
Taiwan's bargaining power if and when Taiwan and China begin
negotiations. China's main card always has been the threat of
force; Taiwan's has been its campaign to establish
sovereignty through membership in world organizations and
other means. By explicitly and needlessly slamming the door
on that campaign, Mr. Clinton has sided with the dictators
against the democrats. To pretend this is no change only
heightens the offense.
____
[From the Wall Street Journal, July 2, 1998]
Bill's Kowtow
Just when we were giving President Clinton credit for
sounding the right notes in China, he managed to turn his
visit into a fiasco after all. His kowtowing to China's
``three no's'' over Taiwan is likely to set off a cycle of
reactions and counterreactions that ultimately will damage
rather than improve Sino-American relations.
The bedrock of U.S. policy toward Taiwan has always been
the Shanghai Communique, issued in 1972 as the two nations
began their rapprochement, and affirmed in later agreements
and the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. In this document the
U.S. declared that it ``acknowledges that all Chinese on
either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one
China and that Taiwan is part of China. The United States
government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its
interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by
the Chinese themselves.'' This was careful ambiguity, for
example in not dealing with the possibility that what the
U.S. acknowledged might someday no longer be true.
A shred of this policy remained, of course, in President
Clinton's remark that U.S. policy ``has been'' that
reunification ``has to be done peacefully.'' This is
something short of a demand that China renounce the use of
force. And Mr. Clinton's mouthing of the ``three no's''
formula tool place only in a carefully choreographed exchange
with a specially selected Chinese scholar, with National
Security Adviser Sandy Berger rushing around with notes. That
is to say, it was something the Administration was rather
ashamed of, despite the claim that is was no change in
previous policy.
On that point, consider the President's language: ``We
don't support independence for Taiwan; or two Chinas; or one
Taiwan, one China. And we don't believe that Taiwan should be
a member in any organization for which statehood is a
requirement.'' Anyone who reads English can see that this is
miles beyond the careful language Richard Nixon and Henry
Kissinger crafted in 1972.
So President Clinton got access to Chinese TV for some
statements about human rights and Tibet, giving him the aura
he wanted back home, and we continue to believe, some
beneficial impact within China. Mr. Clinton also got a dollop
of personal frosting with Jiang Zemin's public assurance that
his government had investigated ``the so-called political
contributions in the United States'' and discovered ``there
never was such a thing.'' There were also some trade
contracts.
Yet even with the President in Shanghai, the on-again, off-
again U.S. visit by a local opera company was definitely
called off. This is not a trifle, since the pique of some
petty official overrode contracts supported by both the
Chinese parties and the U.S. parties. This is precisely the
danger of business with China, as a visiting U.S. President
should take time to notice.
President Jiang, by contrast, got his number one priority,
Mr. Clinton carving the next slice of salami toward the
Chinese goal of getting the U.S. to coerce Taiwan to join
China, or alternatively to stand aside while China invades.
Only two years ago, after all, the People's Liberation Army
was ``testing'' its missiles over the Taiwan Strait, closing
Taiwan's major ports and forcing the U.S. to dispatch two
aircraft carrier battle groups to the area.
The issue of Taiwanese membership in international
organizations is especially ridiculous. We can dismiss the
United Nations as congenitally symbolic, and the sovereignty
requirement would not preclude Taiwan's application to the
World Trade Organization, which recognizes ``customs
territories.'' But Taiwan is already excluded from presumably
serious organizations such as the International Monetary Fund
and the World Bank, though it is among the world's top 20
economies and holds enormous monetary reserves. The world's
remaining superpower should be acting to curb this ongoing
farce, not entrench it.
Mr. Clinton climbed to the pinnacle of politics by pleasing
the audience of the moment, but the ultimate impact of his
demarche will depend on others offstage, on Taiwan and
Capitol Hill. The Taiwanese are understandably upset, with
their foreign ministry declaring that the U.S. and China
``are in no position to conduct bilateral negotiations on
anything related to our future.'' Even more to the point,
Parris Chang, a leader of the pro-independence Democratic
Progressive Party said, ``It's wrong, morally and
politically, for Clinton to collude with the Communist
dictatorship to restrict the future of a democratic country,
Taiwan.''
The Democratic Progressives' position is that Taiwan is
plainly a separate country, and that recognizing reality is
always progress. They are already likely to form the next
government in Taipei, and Mr. Clinton's acceding to the three
no's almost surely improved their standing among Taiwan's
voters. Back in Washington, Congress, historically supportive
of Taiwan and already restive over its foreign-policy
prerogatives, will resist Mr. Clinton's unilateral change in
long-standing American policy.
Taiwan is now plainly a democratic nation, and has every
right to determine its own future. In the end, the U.S. will
not resist this principle, whatever Mr. Clinton said in
Shanghai this week. The danger in Mr. Clinton's words is that
the Chinese leaders who heard them will not only be
disappointed but turn truculent.
Mr. LOTT. These articles, certainly newspapers that don't always take
the same editorial positions, certainly agree in this case and express
their concern about siding with Beijing on this very important issue
relating to the freedom and the democracy of Taiwan.
[[Page S7583]]
I thank the handlers of this bill and the managers for yielding of
this time. We wanted to get this submission done this afternoon.
I am glad to yield to Senator Torricelli.
Mr. TORRICELLI. I want to thank the majority leader for yielding the
time. I am very pleased to join with the majority leader and my
colleagues in offering this resolution regarding the commitment of the
United States to Taiwan.
Like the majority leader, I, too, want to congratulate President
Clinton for an extraordinarily successful visit to the People's
Republic of China. He covered the issues of human rights, security, our
economic relationships--I believe there was real progress made.
Mr. President, it is sometimes said that international conflicts
begin more often from miscalculation than design. I believe it is of
service to the Senate and to our country to make clear upon President
Clinton's return both what was said and accomplished and, indeed, what
remains in place with regard to the U.S. relations with the people and
the government on Taiwan.
American policy toward Taiwan is governed by the Taiwan Relations
Act. There are 4 principle components of this Act, accepted by this
Congress, the bedrock policy of this country, and they remain
unchanged.
First, the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means. The
Taiwan Relations Act does not say that the people of Taiwan and the
mainland will be reunited by peaceful means. It says the future will be
determined by peaceful means. That has not been altered.
Second, the United States affirms that one of its principle
objectives is the preservation and enhancement of the human rights of
the people of Taiwan.
Third, that the United States does not maintain as its policy the
isolation of Taiwan, its government, or its people but there are many
members of this institution, and, indeed, in this government, that
believe it would enhance the security of the region and both peoples if
Taiwan were admitted to international organizations.
Fourth, the United States remains committed to sell those defensive
means necessary for the security of the people of Taiwan.
Mr. President, at a time of economic turbulence in Asia, it is
notable that there is one government and one people that are a bedrock
of economic stability. Taiwan is a model of development of democratic
capitalism. It is a leader in technology and international trade, with
a standard of living obtained for its people that is the envy of Asia.
It is also notable that at a time when it is necessary for the
President of the United States to discuss human rights with other
countries, to discuss their means of government, that Taiwan remains a
stable democracy, respecting the freedom of religion and of speech and
of expression, where people choose their own leadership.
For all these reasons, Mr. President, it is important that there not
be any miscalculation. The policy of this country toward Taiwan is
governed by the Taiwan Relations Act. We remain committed to that
democracy and to its security. This is not of some small moment. This
is, after all, the 19th largest economy in the world. Taiwan is the
seventh largest trading partner of the United States--a vibrant
democracy in the family of democratic nations.
There are many of us who believe that in future years the security of
the region would be enhanced by Taiwan's enhanced relationship with the
United Nations, by its entry into the World Trade Organization and the
Asian Development Bank, where its economic power could be heard and,
indeed, enhance its economic stability.
Mr. President, for all those who have watched this recent trip to
Asia, it bears reminding that this Congress wrote the Taiwan Relations
Act. The Taiwan Relations Act governs the relationship between the
United States and all issues affecting the future of Taiwan and its
people. Only this Congress can change the Taiwan Relations Act.
Mr. President, we are all proud of President Clinton's trip to China.
I believe that he came home with real substantive accomplishments. I
believe it is also useful, as the majority leader has pointed out, to
make clear both what has changed and what has not. The American
commitment to Taiwan has not changed. It will not change. It is a
bedrock of the American commitment to maintain special relationships
with nations that choose their own leaders and live in the democratic
family of countries.
I thank the majority leader for his leadership on this issue. I am
proud to join with him on this concurrent resolution.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue of Taiwan
and the events concerning Taiwan which transpired during our
President's trip to China. While President Clinton maintains that he
did not make any concessions on Taiwan, or in any way alter our
longstanding policy towards Taiwan, I am concerned that, indeed, he may
have; and I think the facts back me up and show that President Clinton
may have, in no small way, initiated changes in our policy towards
Taiwan.
I am specifically concerned with two incidents, Mr. President. First,
during a question-and-answer period at Beijing University, President
Clinton responded to a question on Taiwan. He remarked that ``when the
United States and China reached agreement that we would have a one
China policy, we also reached agreement that reunification would occur
by peaceful means.''
Well, Mr. President, to my knowledge, the United States and China
have never reached an agreement that the Taiwan question would be
resolved through reunification. While the United States has not ruled
out reunification as a possibility, we have also not ruled out the
possibility that the question of Taiwan could be resolved in some other
manner, as long as it was done peacefully. So there is a difference.
Our Federal law on this question is quite clear. Section 2(b)(3) of
the Taiwan Relations Act states that ``The future of Taiwan will be
determined by peaceful means.'' The United States has also signed three
joint communiques with the People's Republic of China which further
elaborate our position on Taiwan. While they all speak to the peaceful
resolution of the Taiwan question, none--none--go so far as to speak to
the question of reunification.
So why am I concerned with the President's choice of words while he
was in China? Because I think it is misleading, dangerously misleading.
It indicates to the Chinese and the Taiwanese that our policy on Taiwan
has changed, when the President says it has not.
The second incident which raises concern, Mr. President, is when
President Clinton seemingly adopted the ``Three-No's'' policy long
advocated by China. The ``Three-No's'' policy states the United States
does not support one Taiwan, one China; the United States does not
support Taiwan independence; and the United States does not support
Taiwan's membership in nation-state based international organizations.
As the July 2, 1998, editorial in the Washington Post correctly
points out, the United States has long ``acknowledged'' China's
position on Taiwan, but has never ever accepted China's position on
Taiwan. There is a significant difference.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this editorial be printed in
the Congressional Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Considered collectively, which I know the Chinese
Government is doing, this could appear to be a major concession by the
United States on the issue of Taiwan. My guess is that the Chinese now
believe that if the Taiwanese people declare independence, the United
States will not support them. What does that say for democracy and the
ideals that we have sworn to uphold and support?
In 1996, when the Chinese military conducted military exercises off
the coast of Taiwan in order to influence Taiwan's national
Presidential elections, President Clinton rightly responded; swiftly
and with resolve. He showed that the United States will not tolerate
the threat of the use of force against Taiwan, just as we will not
tolerate the use of force against Taiwan.
Mr. President, I am concerned that the President's statements made in
[[Page S7584]]
China have now sent the wrong message, and one that could be
destabilizing both to Taiwan and to the entire Asian theater.
I think the United States should pursue our own ``three-no's'' policy
on the question of Taiwan, and they are: We will not accept any
nonpeaceful resolution of the Taiwan question; we will not force Taiwan
to the table with China, nor will we be an intermediary in resolving
this dispute; and we will not turn our backs on democracy and the right
of the Taiwanese people, or any people, to live according to free
democratic principles.
So finally, Mr. President, well in advance of President Clinton's
trip to China, I and a number of colleagues in the Senate sent a letter
to the President urging him to press the Chinese Government on
renouncing the threat of the use of force against Taiwan.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the
Congressional Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 2.)
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I, again, call on the President to insist that the
Chinese Government renounce the threat of the use of force against
Taiwan and take great effort to clarify that our position in support of
Taiwan and our commitment to Taiwan has not changed.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank the floor manager,
Senator Bond, for the courtesy extended me at this time.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska.
I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the
resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Exhibit 1
Siding With the Dictators
The outlines of a deal are beginning to emerge. China gives
President Clinton air time for his speech. Mr. Clinton says
what China wants to hear on Taiwan. Then, in classic Clinton
fashion, the White House tries to have things both ways,
denying that U.S. policy has changed when in fact it has, and
not for the better.
Past administrations recognized, the Beijing government as
the legitimate government of China and ``acknowledged''
China's position with regard to Taiwan. By ``acknowledge''
did not mean ``accept.'' The ultimate fate of Taiwan was
something for Taiwan and China to work out, peacefully.
Beyond that, the United States deliberately left its policy
shrouded in ambiguity.
But recently officials of the Clinton administration have
explicitly adopted a ``three no's'' formula much more
pleasing to the Communist Chinese: no support for one Taiwan-
one China; no support for Taiwan independence; no support for
Taiwan membership in international organizations such as the
United Nations. Now Mr. Clinton has given that policy a
presidential stamp of approval--and on Chinese soil, to boot.
Why does it matter? Because Taiwan's 21 million people have
forged a prosperous democracy over the past decades. There is
no justification for the United States to oppose their right
eventually to determine their own future. It would be fine
for U.S. officials to reiterate that such a determination
must take place peacefully and to encourage Taiwan-China
dialogue. It would be fine for U.S. officials to warn Taiwan
not to expect U.S. support for a unilateral declaration of
independence. What's not fine is for the United States at
this time to rule out independence or any other option the
Taiwanese people eventually might choose.
When China threatened Taiwan militarily in 1996, Mr.
Clinton responded with admirable resolve. But now he is
trading away the human rights of Taiwan's 21 million people
and sending an unfortunate signal to other democracies that
might hope to rely on U.S. moral support.
As a practical matter, he's also significantly weakening
Taiwan's bargaining power if and when Taiwan and China begin
negotiations. China's main card always has been the threat of
force; Taiwan's has been its campaign to establish
sovereignty through membership in world organizations and
other means. By explicitly and needlessly slamming the door
on that campaign, Mr. Clinton has sided with the dictators
against the democrats. To pretend this is no change only
heightens the offense.
____
Exhibit 2
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, May 21, 1998.
Hon. William J. Clinton,
The President, The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: As you prepare for your summit with the
leaders of the People's Republic of China in Beijing, we
thought it appropriate to share with you our thoughts
regarding U.S. relations with the people and the government
of Taiwan. We believe Taiwan has made extraordinary progress
in recent years as the Republic of China has moved to
establish a vibrant democracy with free elections, free
press, and improved trading practices.
We believe the American people are united in their support
for freedom and democracy in Taiwan. Time and again, Congress
has made clear our commitment to Taiwan, beginning with the
1979 Taiwan Relations Act, and through many resolutions and
bills since then.
Although we do not know what will be on the summit agenda,
we do know that the PRC is often eager to try and persuade
the United States to compromise our support for Taiwan and
its democracy. Mr. President, we urge you to oppose any
efforts at the summit by the PRC leadership to diminish
American support for Taiwan. We believe it is important for
the United States to make clear at the summit that while the
U.S. supports a peaceful dialogue between Taipei and Beijing,
the U.S. has committed not to pressure Taiwan on this issue
and to not play any mediation role. You should reiterate
statements made recently by members of your administration
calling on the PRC to renounce the use of force or the threat
of force against Taiwan.
Further, we urge you to reject any plans for a ``Fourth
Communique'' on issues related to Taiwan; to not weaken our
defensive arms sales commitment to Taiwan (either by agreeing
to set an end date or by agreeing to hold prior consultations
with the PRC); to not make any commitment to limit future
visits by the elected representatives of the Republic of
China; to not agree to revise the Taiwan Relations Act; and
to not alter the U.S. position regarding sovereignty over
Taiwan.
We in Congress are prepared to reiterate the commitment of
the American people to freedom and democracy for the people
and government of Taiwan. We look forward to your reassurance
on these issues in advance of the summit.
Sincerely,
Frank H. Murkowski.
Robert G. Torricelli.
Trent Lott.
Jesse Helms.
------ ------
Alfonse D'Amato.
Tim Johnson.
Tom Daschle.
Craig Thomas.
Chuck Hagel.
Larry E. Craig.
Connie Mack.
____________________