[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 96 (Friday, July 17, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8472-S8473]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE ADMINISTRATION'S POSITION ON TAIWAN
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last week the Senate made an important
statement that we support Taiwan by passing S. Con. Resolution 107. And
that we are committed to her people, to her government and to her
democratic way of life.
While we have made countless statements in this body before
concerning Taiwan, the circumstances which led to S. Con. Res. 107 were
different--markedly different--from those in the past. During the
President's trip to China last month, President Clinton ``clarified''
his policy toward Taiwan. He indicated while in Beijing--that the
United States, in agreeing to the One China policy, had agreed with
China that reunification would be peaceful. Further, while in Shanghai,
he went a step further and, for the first time, uttered that the United
States supports the ``Three Noes'' long advocated by the government of
the People's Republic of China. That is: 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.
To understand why this concerns me, Mr. President, one needs to
understand the nuances of our federal law and policy toward Taiwan. It
is in the Taiwan Relations Act, which was passed by Congress and signed
into law by the President in 1979--back when the United States
officially broke off relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan in
favor of the People's Republic of China (PRC). Section 2(b)(3) states
that ``. . . the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful
means.'' We have also signed Three Joint Communiques with the PRC which
address the Taiwan question. While they all speak to the peaceful
resolution of the Taiwan question, none goes so far to speak to the
question of reunification.
Up to now, the saving grace of American policy toward China and
Taiwan, if there were any grace to it, was the ambiguity. China did not
know what the United States would do if Taiwan declared independence;
or if China attacked. They thought they found out in 1996, when the
President rightly sent two aircraft carriers to the Taiwan Straits to
show our strength and resolve--while the Chinese conducted missile
tests aimed at influencing the national presidential elections in
Taiwan. But we have a whole new ballgame, now Mr. President. What a
difference a day makes.
Incredible, Mr. President. The Administration then feigns innocence
and insists that the President's remarks did not constitute a policy
change and that our policy on Taiwan has not changed since 1979--that
it is the same now as it was then. I'm sorry, but I have to expose this
for what it is--a world of make believe. If you repeat something enough
times, eventually people will take it as the gospel. Well not this
time.
This is a policy change; and a serious one at that. Considered
collectively, which I know the Chinese government is doing, it appears
to be a major concession by the United States on the issue of Taiwan.
As I said last Tuesday, I know the Chinese; and understand full well
that they will use it to their utmost advantage. They will tell Taiwan
and the Taiwanese people that if they declare independence, even if by
democratic referendum (one person, one vote), that the United States
will not support them. Case in point, the Washington Post article last
Friday, ``China Tells Taiwan to `Face Reality' Reunification Talks
Urged.'' Although I brought this to the Senate's attention last week, I
think the point needs to be reiterated so that people are on notice. I
ask unanimous consent that a copy of this article appear in the
Congressional Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. MURKOWSKI. This article points out that ``Chinese officials have
said they plan to use the remarks as a lever to force Taiwan into
political talks on reunification.'' So let me make sure I understand
this--the leader of the greatest democratic society in the history of
mankind, has tacitly agreed to a policy which, in itself, undermines
democracy. How and why is this possible? Because political expediency
took the place of sound policy and support for one of our strongest
allies in an increasingly unstable Asian Theater. Well, Mr. President,
I am afraid that these developments may have simply added to the Asian
uncertainty, rather than clarified it.
In agreeing to the ``Three Noes'', President Clinton has effectively
stated that the United States will not support Taiwan independence even
if Beijing agrees to it. Is this the message that was intended to be
delivered? Think about it--the United States used to maintain the line
that peaceful resolution was all that mattered because this in itself
protected the rights of the 21 million people in Taiwan. If they could
cut a deal with Beijing that allowed the two to go their separate ways,
presumably our earlier policy would be fine with that. Personally, as
the PRC becomes more open, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that an
agreement could be reached. But President Clinton's remarks have ruled
this possibility out--because the United States will not support an
independent Taiwan. President Clinton just told the Chinese that they
don't need to negotiate with Taiwan because so far as we are concerned
an independent Taiwan is not an option.
Although most of my colleagues are not aware of this, there is a
terrible contagion going through Taiwan right now--it is very similar
to polio. Estimates are that up to one million people may be carrying
this bug in some form or another, but it doesn't impact adults. Only
the children. In fact, a number of children in Taiwan have died from
this disease which, as I understand it, is exacerbated by the heat.
Well, Mr. President, Taiwan has applied for membership in the World
Health Organization (WHO)--it is a national priority. But, even this
application cannot proceed because membership in the WHO requires
statehood. And that huge island off the coast of China, which we
recognized officially from 1949 to 1979, doesn't have it. This is
ridiculous, and it is about to get a lot worse. So, Taiwan is suffering
from an epidemic which is killing children, and it can't get access
from WHO specialists who might be able to help because Taiwan is not a
sovereign government? Although the PRC has never controlled Taiwan, and
despite the fact that Taiwan has developed a strong democracy and
thriving, stable free market economy, it cannot particpate in the World
Health Organization. Well, Mr. President, this seems yet another time
when the facts somehow lose out to the politics.
Mr. President, we have made statements reiterating our support for
Taiwan, but it is time for us to back them up. The Senate should pass
S. Con. Resolution 30 calling on the Administration to support Taiwan's
bid to take part in international organizations; and we should expand
it to include the World Health Organization. We should take every
opportunity in this body to force the issue, so that our commitment to
Taiwan does not ring hollow as Beijing's steps up the pressure.
Exhibit 1
China Tells Taiwan to Face Reality--Reunification Talks Urged
(By John Pomfret)
BEIJING, July 9--China urged Taiwan today to ``face
reality'' and agree to talks on eventual reunification with
China following comments by President Clinton that the United
States will not support an independent Taiwan.
[[Page S8473]]
Taiwan, meanwhile, announced it had agreed to a visit by a
senior Beijing negotiator to prepare for resumption of high-
level dialogue between the two rivals, separated by the 100-
mile-wide Taiwan Strait.
The developments indicate that after a three-year freeze,
talks could begin as early as this fall between the two
sides. They also underscore the important role the United
States has played in forcing Taiwan to the bargaining table.
Clinton's statement, during his recent nine-day trip to
China, was taken as a significant defeat in Taiwan even
though U.S. officials contended it was simply a reiteration
of U.S. policy.
Clinton's June 30 remarks in Shanghai made clear the United
States would not support any formal independence bid by the
island of 21 million people, or a policy backing ``one China,
one Taiwan,'' or ``two Chinas.'' Clinton also said the United
States will oppose any Taiwanese bid to join international
bodies that accept only sovereign states as members.
Although the policy was first enunciated in October,
Clinton himself had never said it publicly before. Thus, it
was taken as a major defeat in Taiwan, which relies on the
United States for most of its political support and weapons.
In Washington, Clinton's statement has drawn some criticism.
On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.)
called Clinton's remarks counterproductive, and he threatened
unspecified congressional action.
The Beijing government, which views Taiwan as a renegade
Chinese province, has said it is satisfied with Clinton's
remarks, even though it had tried to have Clinton commit them
to writing. Chinese officials have said they plan to use the
remarks as a lever to force Taiwan into political talks on
reunification. Taiwanese officials say they want to limit any
new talks to specific issues, such as immigration, cross-
border crime, fishing rights and protection of investments.
China rejects this limited approach and insists a broader
discussion of reunification is necessary for improved ties.
Taiwan and China ostensibly have been separated since 1895,
when Japan occupied the island following its victory over
Imperial China in the Sino-Japanese War. In 1949, Nationalist
Chinese leader Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan from the
mainland after his forces lost a civil war to Chinese
Communist forces led by Mao Zedong. Since then, the two sides
have moved further away from each other--in both economic and
political development.
In Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokesman Tang Guoqiang said
Clinton's statement has ``positive implications for the
resolution of the Taiwan question,'' and he added: ``We hope
that Taiwan authorities will get a clear understanding of the
situation, face reality and place importance on the national
interest.
``Similarly, the official China Daily quoted one of
Beijing's top negotiators with Taiwan as saying that
Clinton's remarks had helped China. ``This has provided
favorable conditions for the development of cross-strait
relations,'' said Tang Shubei, vice president of the
Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait. ``But
cross-strait issues will ultimately be solved by the Chinese
people.'' Meanwhile, that group's Taiwanese counterpart, the
semi-official Straits Exchange Foundation, informed the
Chinese association that its deputy secretary general, Li
Yafei, could visit Taiwan July 24-31. Li's visit is to be
followed by a reciprocal trip to China by the leader of the
Taiwan foundation, Koo Chen-fu. In June, Beijing invited Koo
to visit China sometime in September or October, and Koo said
later he plans to go in mid-September.
In 1993, Koo and Chinese association leader Wang Daohan met
in Singapore in a landmark gathering that signaled warming
ties between the old rivals. But after two years of improving
relations, the ties collapsed in 1995 when Taiwanese
President Lee Teng-hui obtained a visa to visit the United
States for the 25th reunion of his Cornell University class.
China launched a series of military exercises off the
Taiwanese coast in 1995 and 1996, lobbing cruise missiles
into the area. In 1996, the United States dispatched two
aircraft carrier battle groups to the region as a warning to
China not to contemplate a military solution.
____________________