[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2202-2203]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          ELECTIONS IN TAIWAN

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, during this generation we have 
witnessed the greatest expansion of democratic nations in history. From 
East Asia to Eastern Europe to Latin America and the islands of the 
Pacific, the blessings of democratic pluralism have expanded to the 
very bounds of each continent. It is in the proudest legacies of this 
Nation that the United States has played an essential role in 
facilitating the transition of these nations to democracy and their 
protection at critical moments.
  From military defense to economic assistance, it is questionable 
whether Korea, Poland, Haiti, and scores of other nations would be free 
if it were not for the leadership of the United States. Now this 
generation of American leadership has a new challenge. As certainly as 
our parents and grandparents fought to ensure that these nations would 
have an opportunity to be free, it is our responsibility to assure that 
these fledgling democracies have an opportunity to remain free, a 
challenge that democracy is not a transitional state but a permanent 
condition of mankind, and the nations that would represent them.
  There is one threat developing now before us to this proposition. It 
involves the people of Taiwan. During the late 1980s and 1990s, Taiwan 
underwent an extraordinary transformation from an authoritarian regime 
to a genuine democracy. Taiwan provided an example of peaceful 
political evolution from a military and authoritarian government to a 
true pluralist democracy with little violence, no military 
confrontation, and without a revolution.
  After years of justifying tight security control, step by step, year 
by year,

[[Page 2203]]

Taiwan created a genuine democracy. In 1986, a formal opposition party, 
the Democratic Progressive Party, was formed. And in 1987, martial law 
was ended after more than 40 years. In 1991, President Lee ended the 
Government's emergency powers to deal with dissent and a new, freely 
elected legislature chosen by the people was created. In 1996, Taiwan's 
democracy had matured to the point that a Presidential election was 
held. Taiwan had fully developed. Democracy had come of age.
  Now, in only a few days, on March 18, Taiwan will hold its second 
democratic Presidential election. The challenge to this democracy and 
the rights of freedom of press, worship, and assembly so central to 
maintaining human freedom are no longer under attack from within. The 
pressure is from Beijing. On the very eve of these elections, the 
People's Republic of China issued a statement that constitutes a new 
threat to Taiwanese democracy. China recently issued its so-called 
white paper which warned that if Taiwan indefinitely delays 
negotiations on reunification, China will ``adopt all drastic measures 
possible, including the use of force.''
  This goes beyond China's previous statements that it would take 
Taiwan by force only if it declares independence or were occupied by a 
foreign power. The more democratic Taiwan has become, the lower the bar 
appears to be for military intervention and a hostile settling of the 
Taiwan issue.
  These aggressive statements obviously only serve to increase tension 
in the region and make a peaceful settlement among the people of Taiwan 
and the People's Republic of China much more difficult. This 
belligerent approach obviously has precedent, almost an exact 
precedent. In 1996, also on the eve of a Presidential election in 
Taiwan, the People's Republic launched missiles in a crude attempt to 
intimidate the people of Taiwan as they approached their election.
  It now appears that the election of Taiwan's new President will be 
close. It is critical to the functioning of Taiwan's democracy that 
they thwart any belief in Beijing that intimidation will solve or 
contribute to the relationship between these peoples. It is critical 
that the people of Taiwan stand resolute and that their voters not 
allow these actions to intimidate them.
  There is obviously an American role. The United States must respond 
to this ultimatum by making it absolutely clear that our position is 
firm; it is unequivocal. The dispute between Taiwan and Beijing will 
not be settled by military means, and the United States, in a policy 
that is not unique to Taiwan, will not idly witness a free people in a 
democratic nation be invaded or occupied and have their political 
system altered by armed aggression.
  This, I believe, is the cornerstone of American foreign policy in the 
postwar period. It remains central to who we are as a people and our 
role as the world's largest and most powerful democracy. Any ambiguity 
will, on the other hand, only serve to embolden Beijing and can lead to 
dangerous misinterpretations and miscalculations.
  There is, within this Congress, the opportunity to end any possible 
ambiguity. The House of Representatives has passed, and the Senate has 
before it, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act. Senator Helms and I 
introduced this legislation last year in the Senate. The House has 
spoken overwhelmingly in favor of our legislation, as modified. The 
question is before this Senate.
  The legislation Senator Helms and I have offered is designed to 
ensure Taiwan's ability to meet its defensive security needs and to 
resist Chinese intimidation. It imposes no new obligations on the 
United States. The legislation, as passed by the House, will simply 
strengthen the process for selling defense articles by requiring an 
annual report to Congress on Taiwan's defense requests and ensuring 
that Taiwan has full access to data on defense articles. It mandates 
the sale of nothing. It requires the transfer of no specific article. 
It does guarantee that this Congress understand the security situation, 
Taiwan's requests, and a flow of information. It improves Taiwan's 
military readiness by supporting Taiwan's participation in U.S. 
military academies, ensuring that their military personnel are trained, 
understand American doctrine, and could coordinate if there were a 
crisis. This is not only good for Taiwan, it is good for the United 
States, ensuring that if tragically there ever should be a 
confrontation, our own Armed Forces are in the best position to train 
people familiar with our doctrine and any mutual obligations.
  Finally, it requires that the United States establish secure, direct 
communications between the American Pacific Command and Taiwan's 
military. Nothing would be more tragic than to enter into a military 
confrontation by mistake or misinformation. This ensures reliable, 
fast, secure information so the situation is available to our own 
military commanders.
  The legislation does not commit the United States to take any 
specific military actions now, later, or ever. A full range of options 
are available to the President and to the Congress. It also does not 
alter or amend our commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act. Rather, 
it helps us to fulfill those commitments under the act and ensures that 
Taiwan's security needs are adequately met.
  If we pass this legislation, it makes it less likely that we will 
become engaged in any future conflict because there will be no 
ambiguity, no chance of miscalculation because of Taiwan's ability to 
strengthen itself, and because of our mutual ability to assess 
defensive needs, less chance of a military calculation in the mistaken 
belief that either Taiwan will not be defended or have the ability to 
defend itself.
  There is an important national interest in integrating the People's 
Republic of China into the world's economy and in promoting the growth 
of democracy and human rights in a nation that will play a vital role 
in the coming century. But our overall relationship cannot possibly 
develop quickly and positively if China continues to seek a military 
solution to the question of its relations with the people of Taiwan.
  By not making our policy clear, by not assessing the military 
situation, we do not contribute to the avoidance of military conflict. 
We enhance the possibility of military conflict. This legislation, I 
believe, is a strong statement that avoids miscalculation and lessens 
the chances of conflict. President Clinton made a strong statement last 
week in support of a peaceful resolution of this issue when he said:

       Issues between Beijing and Taiwan must be resolved 
     peacefully and with the assent of the people of Taiwan.

  This formulation's emphasis on the ``assent of the people''--the 
words used by President Clinton--is new and important.
  Together with this Taiwan Enhancement Security Act, I believe it is 
an important contribution in this current debate on the problems of 
Taiwan security. It is, most importantly, in accord with the language 
of the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act as passed by the House, which 
states, ``Any determination of the ultimate status of Taiwan must have 
the express consent of the people of Taiwan.''
  The Taiwan Enhancement Security Act, therefore, and President 
Clinton's own statement in response to recent provocations by Beijing, 
are not only similar, they are identical. I believe the House of 
Representatives, in changing the Helms-Torricelli approach, has made a 
valuable contribution. I believe, for the maintenance of the peace and 
ensuring this Nation's commitment, that those nations which have chosen 
to be democratic, pluralist nations, governed with the consent of their 
own people--the commitment of this Nation that those nations will not 
by force of arms or intervention have their forms of government changed 
or altered will be enhanced.
  Taiwan, today, is the cornerstone of that American commitment. 
Tomorrow, it could be Africa or Latin America. How we stand now on the 
eve of these free elections in Taiwan will most assuredly constitute a 
powerful message in all other places where others would challenge these 
new and fledgling democracies.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.



  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask what the pending business is.
  Mr. SANTORUM. We are in morning business.

                          ____________________