[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6190-6192]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 6191]]

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 no 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 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

[[Page 6192]]

     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.

                          ____________________