[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 110 (Friday, July 30, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9938-S9939]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ADMINISTRATION'S CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT WITH CHINA
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I submit for the Congressional Record a
column by Michael Kelly that appeared in the July 28th edition of the
Washington Post. Mr. Kelly asks in his column whether it ``strikes
anyone as odd'' that the Clinton-Gore Administration continues
desperately to hand onto its policy of ``constructive engagement'' with
China, even as Beijing breaths fire in response to reasonable statement
made by the freely- and fairly-elected President of Republic of China
on Taiwan.
This Senator, for one, has serious questions about the wisdom of
President Clinton's foreign policy as it relates to China, and the
competence of the Clinton-Gore Administration to protect and advance
America's interest in this vital region of the world.
In response to statements by Taiwan's President Lee Teng-hui that
discussions and talks between Taiwan and China should be conducted on a
``special state-to-state'' basis, China has repeatedly issued not-so-
veiled threats of its intent to use military force against Taiwan
unless President Lee retracts his statements.
What was the response of the Clinton-Gore Administration? Let me
reference a news story from the July 26th edition of the Washington
Post entitled ``Albright, Chinese Foreign Minister Hold `Very Friendly
Lunch.' '' The article reads in part,
Lee's announcement triggered a ferocious response by
Beijing. Washington also criticized it and dispatched a
representative to pressure Taiwan to modify its statement.
Today, Albright said that Richard Bush, the U.S. envoy to
Taiwan, told Lee ``that there needs to be . . . a peaceful
resolution to this and a dialogue. And I think that the
explanations offered thus far don't quite do it.''
Mr. President, this is an amazing as it is outrageous. Rather than
defend the Republic of China on Taiwan and its right to live in peace
and choose its own form of government, Secretary of State Albright has
a ``very friendly lunch'' with one of the highest ranking members of
the repressive communist Chinese regime while one of her assistants
reprimands and pressures Taiwan to appease China. Can it truly be our
nation's policy is to protect China from Taiwan?
Taiwan is not the bully in this matter. Taiwan deserves America's
commitment to defend it against China's threats. Our nation should
proudly and firmly stand by Taiwan, a blooming and prosperous democracy
where free speech, religious freedom and the benefits of capitalism are
practiced and enjoyed. The United States should stand in the future, as
it has in the past, for freedom and democracy whenever those great
qualities are threatened by the forces of repression.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article ``On The
Wrong Side,'' by Michael Kelly be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, July 28, 1999]
On the Wrong Side
(By Michael Kelly)
Back in the dear, dead days when the Democratic Party stood
for dreams a bit loftier than clinging to power, the labor
wing of the party liked to ask a question: ``Whose side are
you on?'' It was a good question because it was an awkward
one and an inescapable one. The question presents itself
these days, awkwardly and inescapably as always, in the
matter of Taiwan and China. Whose side are we on?
On the one hand, we have Taiwan, which is an ally and a
democracy. It is not a perfect ally nor a perfect democracy
(but neither is the United States). Formed out of the
nationalist movement that lost China to Mao's Communists,
Taiwan increasingly has wished for independent statehood. In
recent years, as the island has become more democratic and
more wealthy, it has become more aggressive in expressing
this wish.
On the one hand, we have China. The People's Republic is a
doddering, desperate despotism, in which a corrupt oligarchy
presides, only by the power of the gun, over a billion people
who would rather live in freedom. China has always regarded
Taiwan as an illegitimately errant province, ultimately to be
subjugated to Beijing's rule. In recent years, as China's
rulers have found themselves increasingly uneasy on their
thrones, they have attempted, in the usual last refuge of
dictators, to excite popular support by threatening
belligerence against an exterior enemy--in this case, Taiwan.
For two decades, the United States has supported a
deliberately ambiguous policy, which says that there should
be ``one China,'' but carefully does not say who should rule
that China. Ambiguity worked pretty well for a long time, but
it is a Cold War relic whose logic has expired, and its days
are running out.
Two weeks ago, Taiwan's president, Lee Teng-hui, recognized
this reality and said that henceforth Taiwan and China should
deal with each other on a ``state-to-state'' basis. Beijing
reacted with its usual hysterical bellicosity. This week,
Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan used a session of the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations to again threaten
Taiwan: ``If there occur any action for Taiwan independence
and any attempt by foreign forces to separate Taiwan from the
motherland, the Chinese people and government will not sit
back,'' Tang said. He added a warning to Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright to ``be very careful not to say anything
to fan the flames'' of independence.
Not to worry. Neither Madame Secretary nor anyone else in
the Clinton administration has the slightest intention of
fanning freedom's flames. Quite the contrary. The
administration has reacted to Lee's ``state-to-state''
remarks by repeatedly reassuring Beijing that the United
States is entirely with it in this matter. On Monday Albright
made a point of saying that Lee's efforts to back off of his
remarks ``thus far don't quite do it.'' So, we are on China's
side.
We are on the side of a regime that, the administration's
own Justice Department tells us, has engaged in (1) a massive
and perhaps still ongoing campaign to steal America's most
valuable nuclear secrets; and (2) an effort to corrupt the
1996 elections by funneling cash to, principally, the
Clinton-Gore campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
We are on the side of a regime that, the administration
assures, is becoming more tolerant of political freedom. Is
that so? Beijing has intensified the persecution of political
dissidents since Clinton began his policy of ``constructive
engagement'' with China. Most recently, Beijing has been
hosting old-fashioned Stalinist show trials of democratic
dissidents; three organizers of the fledgling China
Democratic Party drew sentences of, respectively, 13, 12 and
11 years.
China also continues its campaign to destroy independent
religious movements. Accordingly to the group Human Rights in
China, the regime arrested 7,410 leaders of the Protestant
house-church movement in two months last year. Currently,
Beijing is undertaking a countrywide effort to stamp out the
spiritual movement Falun Gong. The New York Times reports
that more than 5,000 people have been arrested, and 1,200
government officials who are movement members have been
shipped off to re-education schools to study Communist Party
doctrine.
We are on the side of a regime that forces abortions on
women who attempt to give ``unplanned'' births; a regime that
exploits
[[Page S9939]]
the accidental bombing of its embassy to incite anti-American
riots, threatening U.S. citizens; a regime that continues to
sell weapons of mass destruction to rogue states inimical to
U.S. interests.
We are acting against a regime that seeks democratic
independence and a society rooted in the pursuit of life,
liberty and happiness.
Doesn't any of this strike anyone as odd?
____________________