The Week In Congress.com

Week Ending July 16, 2004

 

  Click flag for map and country data, Taiwan

 

House Concurrent Resolution 462 reaffirming the US commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act and for other purposes.

 

 

BRIEF

   In the resolution Congress ‘reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act as the cornerstone of United States-Taiwan relations.

   As such the US is continuing to involve itself in a contentious matter that began nearly sixty years ago when dictator Chang Kai Shek was displaced by communist leader Mao Tse Tung and leaped across the China Straights, well financed and protected, to the tiny island of Taiwan. One result of Mr. Chang’s departure is the lingering debate over which is the real China. A non-communist dictatorship was apparently better than a communist one and the US took the side of Taiwan developing, over the years, strong military and trade relations with Taiwan. Now, of course the US trades far more with China.

   Despite continuously increasing trade, cultural, business and educational relations with China and expected cooperation in the growing crisis in North Korea the resolution states ‘the military modernization and weapons procurement program of the People's Republic of China (PRC) is a matter of grave concern, particularly the missile deployment directed toward Taiwan.’

   Congress urges the President to direct U.S. officials to raise these military concerns with PRC officials and the President and Congress should determine whether the escalating arms buildup, including deployment of offensive weaponry and missiles in areas adjacent to the Taiwan Strait, requires that additional defense articles and services be made available to Taiwan, and the United States should encourage Taiwan to devote sufficient financial resources to its defense.

   As recommended by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, the Department of Defense should provide the appropriate congressional committees with a comprehensive report on Russian military sales to the PRC, the President should encourage further dialogue between Taiwan and the PRC; and the United States should not discourage Taiwan officials from visiting the United States on the basis that doing so would violate the "one China policy."

   Some House members opposed the bill on the basis that it would appear to obligate the US to arrive in defense of any military aggression against Taiwan. They also question if military aide for the tiny country to defend itself against a mega power such as China makes sense.

 

Sponsor: Representative Henry J. Hyde (R-IL-6th)

Vote: Passed House 400 to 18 with 4 voting Present (RC 379)

Cost to the taxpayers: No discernible cost.

 

MORE INFORMATION

PROS and CONS

   Bill supporter Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ-4th) explained that ‘The Act has allowed the United States to maintain its close ties with the people of Taiwan while actively engaging Asia's rising power, the People's Republic of China, on a myriad of fronts, including human rights. In doing so, the measure has been important to the maintenance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and throughout the entire Western Pacific region.  

   “In the years since Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979, Taiwan has developed into a lively and successful democracy, a tribute to the courage and determination of the island's remarkable people. The 1996 presidential election in Taiwan was the first time in China's 5 millennia of recorded history that a fully democratically elected government assumed office. The election of 2000, which resulted in a peaceful transfer of power from one political party to another, evidenced a deepening democratic system. Two months ago, Taiwan completed its third direct presidential election,” Rep Smith said.

   An opponent to the bill, Rep. Bill Paul (R-TX-14th) found several concerns with the bill, “I certainly think the Taiwan Relations Act qualifies as an entangling alliance, and that is what we have been warned about: ``Do not get involved in entangling alliances.'' It gets us so involved, we get in too deep, and then we end up with a military answer to too many of our problems. I think that is what has happened certainly in the last 50 years.”

   Rep. Paul explained his concerns further, “I essentially have four objections to what we are doing. One is a moral objection. I will not dwell on the first three and I will not dwell on this one. But I do not believe one generation of Americans has a moral right to obligate another generation, because, in many ways, when we make this commitment, this is not just a friendly commitment; this is weapons and this is defense.

   “Most people interpret the Taiwan Relations Act as a commitment for our troops to go in and protect the Taiwanese if the Chinese would ever attack. Although it is not explicit in the act, many people interpret it that way. But I do not believe that we or a generation 25 years ago has the moral right to obligate another generation to such an overwhelming commitment, especially if it does not involve an attack on our national security. Some say that if Taiwan would be attacked, it would be (an attack on our national security). But, quite frankly, it is a stretch to say that settling that dispute over there has something to do with an attack on our national security.

   “Economics is another issue. We are running out of money; and these endless commitments, military commitments and commitments overseas, cannot go on forever. Our national debt is going up between $600 billion and $700 billion a year, so eventually my arguments will win out, because we are going to run out of money and this country is going to go broke. So there is an economic argument against that,” he said.

   “It is very clear that the Constitution does not give us this authority to assume responsibility for everybody, and to assume the entire responsibility for Taiwan is more than I can read into the Constitution

   “So this, to me, just does not quite add up. If we put arms in Taiwan, why would we not expect the Chinese to put arms in opposition, because they are only answering what we are doing? What happened when the Soviets went to Cuba? They put arms there. We did not like that. What would happen if the Chinese went into Cuba or Mexico? We are not going to like that. So I think this part is in conflict with what the National Relations Act says, because we are seeking a peaceful resolution of this…. it is these types of commitments, these types of alliances that we make that commit us to positions that are hard to back away from. This is why we get into these hot wars, these shooting wars, when really I do not think it is necessary.”

   Rep. Smith saw a different scenario, “The Taiwan Relations Act made it very clear in section 3 that there is no ambiguity about the policy. It is very clear to make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.

   “Nobody in their right mind or in their wildest dreams would ever conceive of Taiwan attacking the mainland. It is all about a credible deterrence so that that dialogue between Beijing and Taipei can go forward, and that is why I think that this law has been so important in helping to maintain that protective cocoon, if you will, so that this dialogue again could go forward without an invasion from the People's Republic of China.”

   But Rep. Paul continued his objections, “Once again, I want to make the point about the inconsistency of our policy. In 1979, the Taiwan Relations Act was put in place mainly because we orchestrated getting them kicked out of the U.N., so we had to do something, so we passed this act, and we ended official relations. We do not have ambassadors to Taiwan. That is part of this absurdity of the one China policy. Yet, at the same time, we feel this obligation and this commitment to make sure they have these weapons for defense. I mean, it just does not add up. All we need is a consistent pattern saying that people have a right to self-determination and encourage it and get out of the way. Those people over there in Taiwan right now, they are investing in China. The natural courses of events will take care of it. We have the South Koreans wanting to deal with the North Koreans, and we tend to get in the way; and here we have the Taiwanese who are investing, and they would like to work some of this out, and too often we get in the way.

   “Now, the chairman mentioned a phrase in the resolution in defense of his position, but it is one that I am concerned about. It says, in section 3, requires the United States Government to make available defense articles. We do not have any choice. We make an absolute commitment that we are going to put those weapons there, and we are looking for trouble. I mean, this is how you start wars, putting weapons in there.

   “And then in the next phrase, I am also concerned about this, and it restates the position in the Taiwan Relations Act, whereas the Taiwan Relations Act requires the United States to maintain the capacity to resist any resort to force. Now, we have to think about that. Most people interpret that as, we are on our way, the boys are ready to go. No matter how thinly we are spread around the world, the capacity is now currently interpreted that, yes, we would come to their aid, and it sounds like people in support of this resolution would support that. But that is not the way this country is supposed to go to war. And this, to me, is a preamble, if there is a skirmish or a fight over there and it is going to be bigger because we are there and providing the weapons.” ## All Rights Reserved. No reproduction or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com