[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 53 (Wednesday, April 25, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H1582-H1584]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
A NEW CHINA POLICY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, President Bush deserves much credit for the
handling of the spy plane crisis. However, he has received significant
criticism from some of his own political supporters for saying he was
very sorry for the incident. This seems a very small price to pay for
the safe return of 24 American military personnel.
Trade with China, though, should be credited with helping to resolve
this crisis. President Bush in the diplomatic handling of this event
avoided overly strong language and military threats which would have
done nothing to save the lives of these 24 Americans.
This confrontation, however, provides an excellent opportunity for us
to reevaluate our policy toward China and other nations. Although trade
with China for economic reasons encourages both America and China to
work for a resolution of the spy plane crisis, our trading status with
China should be reconsidered.
Mr. Speaker, what today is called ``free trade'' is not exactly that.
Although we engage in trade with China, it is subsidized to the tune of
many billions of dollars through the Export-Import Bank, the most of
any country in the world.
We also have been careless over the last several years in allowing
our military secrets to find their way into the
[[Page H1583]]
hands of the Chinese government. At the same time we subsidize trade
with China, including sensitive military technology, we also build up
the Taiwanese military, while continuing to patrol the Chinese border
with our spy planes. It is a risky, inconsistent policy.
The question we must ask ourselves is how would we react if we had
Chinese airplanes flying up and down our coast and occupying the air
space of the Gulf of Mexico? We must realize that China is a long way
from the U.S. and is not capable nor is showing any signs of launching
an attack on any sovereign territory of the United States. Throughout
all of China's history, she has never pursued military adventurism far
from her own borders. That is something that we cannot say about our
own policy. China traditionally has only fought for secure borders,
predominantly with India, Russia, Japan, and in Korea against the
United States, and that was only when our troops approached the Yalu
River.
It should not go unnoticed that there was no vocal support from any
of our allies for our spy missions along the Chinese coast. None of our
allies bothered to condemn the action of the Chinese military aircraft,
although it technically was cause of the accident.
Do not forget that when a Russian aircraft landed in Japan in 1976,
it was only after many months we returned the plane to Russia, in
crates.
Although there is no doubt that we technically have legal grounds for
making these flights, the question really is whether or not it is wise
to do so or necessary for our national security. Actually, a strong
case can be made that our national security is more threatened by our
patrolling the Chinese coast than if we avoided such flights
altogether.
After a half century, it is time to reassess the need for such
flights. Satellite technology today gives us the ability to watch and
to listen to almost everyone on Earth. If there is a precise need for
this type of surveillance for the benefit of Taiwan, then the Taiwanese
ought to be involved in this activity, not American military personnel.
{time} 1330
We should not feel so insecure that we need to threaten and
intimidate other countries in order to achieve some vague psychological
reassurance that we are still the top military power in the world. This
is unnecessary and may well represent a weakness rather than a
strength.
The Taiwanese Relations Act essentially promises that we will defend
Taiwan at all costs and should be reevaluated. Morally and
constitutionally a treaty cannot be used to commit us to war at some
future date. One generation cannot declare war for another. Making an
open-ended commitment to go to war, promising troops, money and weapons
is not permitted by the Constitution.
It is clear that war can be declared only by a Congress currently in
office. Declaring war cannot be circumvented by a treaty or agreement
committing us towards some future date. If a previous treaty can commit
future generations to war, the House of Representatives, the body
closest to the people, would never have a say in the most important
issue of declaring war.
We must continue to believe and be confident that trading with China
is beneficial to America. Trade between Taiwan and China already exists
and should be encouraged. It is a fact that trade did help to resolve
this current conflict without a military confrontation.
Concern about our negative trade balance with the Chinese is
irrelevant. Balance of payments are always in balance. For every dollar
we spend in China, those dollars must come back to America. Maybe not
buying American goods as some would like, but they do come back as they
serve to finance our current account deficit.
Free trade, it should be argued, is beneficial even when done
unilaterally, providing a benefit to our consumers. But we should take
this opportunity to point out clearly and forcefully the foolishness of
providing subsidies to the Chinese through such vehicles as the Export-
Import Bank. We should be adamantly opposed to sending military
technology to such a nation or to any nation, for that matter.
It is interesting to note that recent reports reveal that missiles
coming from Israel and financed by American foreign aid were seen on
the fighter plane that caused the collision. It should be equally clear
that arming the enemies of our trading partners does not make a whole
lot of sense either. For American taxpayers to continue to finance the
weaponry of Taiwan and to maintain an open commitment to send troops if
the border dispute between Taiwan and China erupts into violence is
foolhardy and risky.
Don't forget that President Eisenhower once warned that there always
seems to be a need for a ``monster to slay'' in order to keep the
military industries busy and profitable. To continue the weapons
buildup, something we are always engaged in around the world, requires
excuses for such expenditures--some of these are planned, some
contrived, and some accidental.
When we follow only a military approach without trading in our
dealings with foreign nations, and in particular with China, we end up
at war, such as we did in the Korean War. Today, we are following a
policy where we have less military confrontation with the Chinese and
more trade, so relations are much better. A crisis like we have just
gone through is more likely to be peacefully resolved to the benefit of
both sides. But what we need is even less military involvement, with no
military technology going to China and no military weapons going to
Taiwan. We have a precise interest in increasing true free trade; that
is, trade that is not subsidized nor managed by some world government
organization like the WTO. Maintaining peace would then be much easier.
We cannot deny that China still has many internal moral, economic and
political problems that should be resolved. But so do we. Their
internal problems are their own. We cannot impose our views on them in
dealing with these issues, but we should be confident enough that
engaging in free trade with them and setting a good example are the
best ways for us to influence them in coming to grips with their
problems. We have enough of our own imperfections in this country in
dealing with civil liberties, and we ought not to pretend that we are
saintly enough to impose our will on others in dealing with their
problems. Needless to say we don't have the legal authority to do so
either.
During the Cuban missile crisis a resolution was achieved under very
dangerous circumstances. Quietly, President Kennedy had agreed to
remove the missiles from Turkey that we pointed at the Soviets, making
the point that American missiles on the Soviet borders was not unlike
the Soviets missiles on the American borders. A few months later,
quietly, the United States removed these missiles, and non one
suffered. The Cold War was eventually won by the United States, but our
national security was not threatened by the removal of those missiles.
It could be argued that the fact that our missiles were in Turkey and
pointed at the Soviets was more of a threat to our national security
because that motivated the Soviets to put their missiles in Cuba. It
would do no harm to our national security for us to quietly, in time,
stop the potentially dangerous and unnecessary spy missions that we
have pursued for over 50 years along the Chinese border.
James Bamford recently wrote in The New York Times of an episode that
occurred in 1956 when Eisenhower was president. On a similar spy
mission off the Chinese coast the Chinese Air Force shot down one of
our planes, killing 16 American crewmen. In commenting on the incident
President Eisenhower said, ``We seem to be conducting something that we
cannot control very well. If planes were flying 20 to 50 miles from our
shores we would be very likely to shoot them down if they came in
closer, whether through error or not.''
We have been pursuing these missions near China for over 50 years.
It's time to reconsider the wisdom and the necessity of such missions,
especially since we are now engaged in trade with this nation.
Bellicose and jingoistic demands for retaliation and retribution are
dangerous, and indeed are a greater threat to our national security
than relying on satellite technology for gathering the information that
we might need. A policy of peaceful, non-subsidized trade with China
would go a long way to promoting friendly and secure relations with the
Chinese people. By not building up the military arsenal of the
Taiwanese, Taiwan will be forced to pursue their trade policies and
investments with China, leading to the day where the conflict between
these two powers can be resolved peacefully.
Today, it looks like there's a much better chance of North and South
Korea getting together and solving their dispute than was the case in
the 1950s, when we sent hundreds of thousands of troops and millions of
bombs to resolve the conflict--which was unsuccessful.
We should have more confidence that peaceful trade is a much stronger
weapon
[[Page H1584]]
than all the military force that we can provide. That same argument can
be made for our dealings with Vietnam today. We did not win with
weapons of war in the 1960s, yet we are now much more engaged in a
peaceful trade with the people of Vietnam. Our willingness over the
past hundred years to resort to weapons to impose our will on others
has generally caused a resentment of America rather than respect.
It is now time to reassess our entire foreign policy of military
worldwide intervention. Staying neutral in world conflicts while
showing a willingness to trade with all nations anxious to trade with
us will do more to serve the cause of world peace than all the
unnecessary and provocative spy missions we pursue around the globe.
I recommend the following article by Orlando Sentinel columnist
Charley Reese for its sober analysis of the recent events of China.
[From the Orlando Sentinel, April 22, 2001]
So You Want To Go To War With China?
(By Charley Reese)
I've been intrigued by the responses to a column I wrote
suggesting that our China policy ought to be spelled out and
submitted to the American people for approval.
First, some people irately took issue with my calling the
airplane a ``spy plane.'' It is not, they stoutly contend,
because it is overtly intercepting electronic signals.
Let's suppose a clearly marked police van parked on the
public street in front of your house. Let's suppose the
officers began to intercept your telephone calls, whatever
information appeared on your computer screen and even your
verbal conversations. Now, would you feel spied upon or would
you say, ``Hey, that's only electronic intercepts, and they
are operating openly on a public street.''
Then there is the more logical argument that we need to spy
on the Chinese in case we have to fight them. My point
exactly. Why do we have to fight them?
We certainly should not fight them over Taiwan. Our own
beloved Jimmy Carter unilaterally abrogated the mutual-
defense treaty. Our own tough anti-Communist Richard Nixon
publicly agreed that Taiwan is part of China and, therefore,
falls under the category of China's internal affairs. What's
to fight about?
If Taiwan declares its independence, I would expect Chinese
leaders would emulate Abraham Lincoln and use force to
prevent it. For all my little old Southern life, I've heard
Yankees say Lincoln was right. What's good for Honest Abe is
good for Honest Jiang, right?
Then there is the argument that we must not lose our
position as a ``Pacific power.'' Geographically, since we
granted independence to the Philippines, we are not a Pacific
power.
I see no reason why we should wish to be a Pacific power in
a military sense. What's to be gained?
The two natural Pacific powers are Japan and China.
The funniest response has been alarm about China's
``military buildup.'' I would say that if China did not
engage in a military buildup after watching the United States
go bomb and missile crazy during the past 20 years that it
would be derelict in its duty. But let's keep this in
perspective. The Chinese have about 20 ICBMs; we have
hundreds. Their defense expenditures are somewhere around $50
billion; ours, in excess of $268 billion.
Furthermore, Chinese strategy, as discussed in their own
military journals, is to develop the ability to defeat us in
their immediate vicinity. That means clearly that if we keep
our nose out of their affairs, no military clashes are likely
to occur.
Civilians, too, need to be reminded that military forces
are about making war. We should never have changed from the
honest name, War Department, to the Newspeak name, Defense
Department. Armed forces are either fighting wars, training
to fight wars or planning to fight wars. That's what they do.
It's also what the military forces of every other country
do. Just because a country's military makes contingency plans
to fight some other country doesn't mean that they intend to
initiate a war.
Unfortunately America is full of jingoists, usually pot-
bellied gray-hairs or 4-F journalists and policy wonks. They
are always eager for the teens and twentysomethings to go
somewhere and get killed or maimed. In most cases, within
five years of their youthful deaths, nobody can remember why
they had to get killed.
Korea ended up divided exactly the same way after the war
as before the war. Vietnam became communist, which it could
have become without 57,000 Americans dying in it. We went to
war presumably to preserve the oil contracts with Kuwait
Inc., and now Americans are driving around with gasoline
refined from Iraqi oil.
As for you ``love-it-or-leave-it'' blockheads, you leave it
and go fight instead of sending someone else if you are such
grand warriors. What I love are the people and the land, not
the government.
The lives of a nation's youth are its most precious
treasure, and I'm damned if I will stay silent while armchair
generals propose to risk that treasure in some stupid,
ignorant, corrupt or unnecessary war.
____________________