[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?

                          ____________________