A Great Victory for Democratic Taiwan and FAPA

 The House of Representatives’ passage of the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act (TSEA), by an overwhelming 341-70 margin, was a great victory for democratic Taiwan and for FAPA.

“I have received numerous letters and petitions from Taiwanese Americans in my district urging passage of the bill,” stated Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-NY) in the opening minutes of the debate.  “As Professor Ken Hsu of Pittsford, New York, notes, ‘This act will help maintain the peace and security of the Taiwan Strait.’  Over the past decade, Taiwan has become a full-fledged, multiparty democracy.  Presidential elections are scheduled for March of this year.  Taiwan fully respects human rights and civil liberties and is often touted as a model for democracy in East Asia.”

Speaker after speaker returned to this theme: the TSEA removes any ambiguity about US support for the people of Taiwan as they exercise their right to vote free from any external threats.

“At this time there should be no confusion among those in Taiwan as to where we stand, which is shoulder to shoulder with the people of Taiwan,” stated Rep. Bob Schaffer (R-CO).  Shaffer noted that he had just met Annette Lu, the DPP’s vice-presidential candidate, and she “was very direct in pointing out the importance of this Congress speaking forcefully and boldly with respect to our relationship with Taiwan and our support for self-determination in Taiwan.”

“Freedom is not negotiable where we stand,” said Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ), “and we do stand with the freedom-loving people of Taiwan.”

It is clear that Members of Congress had listened carefully to their FAPA constituents and to the Trong Chai-led delegation that FAPA staff brought to Congressional offices the week before the vote.  Many Representatives told the delegation that they had heard from FAPA members about the TSEA.
The testimony of Hsieh Tsung-min, one of the 12 person delegation members, was particularly powerful.  Hsieh told the Members of Congress that he had been a political prisoner for over 10 years precisely because he had advocated for democracy during the dark years of KMT one-party rule of Taiwan.  “Now,” he said, “we have democracy and it is being threatened by China.  We need your support to allow our people to vote in the coming presidential election without fear of what China will do or which candidate China likes or doesn’t like.”
Echoed Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), in support of the bill, “Throughout the 20th century, struggling democracies across this globe knew that they could always count on American to support them when their freedom was threatened.  At the dawn of a new century, the world must be reassured that the United States will continue to stick by their friends.”
 
As important as the bill is symbolically, Representatives were quick to point out the growing military might of China and the need to bolster Taiwan's self-defense capabilities.

To do so, the bill requires the Secretary of Defense to “implement a plan for the enhancement of programs and arrangements for operational training and exchanges of senior officers between the Armed Forces of the United States and the armed forces of Taiwan for work in threat analysis, doctrine, force planning, operational methods, and other areas”

This mandate deals with one missing element in the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which has no provision for operational training.  As Trong Chai reminded Members of Congress, “You taught us how to fly the F-16, but not how to fight with it.”

The bill also deals with a deficiency in the implementation of the TRA.  Only once, back in 1980, has any U.S. Administration really consulted with Congress on arms sales to Taiwan, as called for in the TRA.   Section 3(b) of the TRA, said Rep. Doug Bereuter (R-NE), chair of the Asia-Pacific Subcommittee,“is being ignored by the Administration and therefore Congress is basically not able to determine what the Taiwanese are requesting, the nature of the justification given, or the Administration’s response to arms sale requests of the Taiwan government.”  The TSEA mandates a report covering these details.

The TSEA also calls for increased training for Taiwan’s military officers in US military schools and the establishment of direct secure communi-cations between US and Taiwanese forces.

The bill mandates two other reports, one on the security situation in the Taiwan Strait and a report on the ability of the US to successfully respond to a major contingency in the Asia-Pacific region where US interests on Taiwan are at risk.

“This bill is a necessary bipartisan step towards fulfilling our promise to Taiwan,” stated Rep. Peter Deutsch (D-FL).  “It would increase Taiwan’s defense capabilities while at the same time addressing any remaining deficiencies through establishment of direct communications between our militaries.”  Then Rep. Deutsch added the final touch, “This bill would reiterate the fundamental truth of democracy, that any determination of the ultimate status of Taiwan must have the express consent of the people of Taiwan.”

The expected huffing and puffing from both the Administration and China came on cue.

“I think this bill should be renamed the ‘Taiwan Insecurity Enhancement Act,’” said Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Advisor. “The Taiwan Relations Act has given us all the authority we need to provide defensive equipment to Taiwan.  But that has all taken place within the construct of a one-China policy, in which our relationship with Taiwan is unofficial, not official.”  [See page 6 for more on this topic.]

Berger had apparently not heard Senator Joseph Biden’s reproach to the Administration back in August.  You do have all the authority you need, said Biden then, but you are not using it.  “Get smart.  Quick!” said Biden.  The message didn’t get through, it seems.  The White House announced that it would veto the bill when it reaches President Clinton.

China called in the U.S. Ambassador and warned him that U.S.-China ties would be “seriously damaged” if the bill becomes law.  Yang Jie-chi, Deputy Foreign Minister called the bill a “serious encroachment on China’s sovereignty [and] a gross interference in China’s internal affairs.… China’s government and people seriously express their strongest indignation about this bill.”

The fight now moves to the Senate.  Berger believes the Administration will have better luck there.  “I believe that we will be able to convince most senators that we should not upset the delicate balance of peace, that we should continue to maintain the one-China policy, we should continue to insist upon a peaceful resolution of the dispute, … we have all the authority we need under the Taiwan Relations Act and we ought not to upset that apple cart.”

FAPA members need to keep in mind John Paul Jones’ words, “We have not yet begun to fight!”

We also need to thank all Representatives who voted for the TSEA and ask, diplomatically, those who voted against the bill to explain their reasons for doing so.  We are in this for the long haul and will keep watching votes carefully!
 

 
 Congress to State Department:
Support WHO Observer Status for Taiwan
 
Five Members of Congress, in a 1/11/00 letter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, urged the Clinton Administration “to support Taiwan’s upcoming bid to obtain observer status in the World Health Organization.”

Reps. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Chris Cox (R-CA), Sam Gejdenson (D-CT), Tom Lantos (D-CA) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said they were “deeply distressed by our government’s refusal to support Taiwan’s bid for observer status in the WHO.”

The Representatives note that the State Department report released in early January, mandated by Public Law 106-137, states “there is insufficient support for such a resolution.”  The State Department then says it will look for “practical” ways to find a way for Taiwan to participate in the WHO.

“Taiwan is denied participation in the WHO because of the People’s Republic of China’s assertion its neighbor is not a nation and should be denied access to the latest medical protocols,” the Representatives state.  “The fact of the matter is that participation for Taiwan in the World Health Organization poses no threat to Beijing’s security but would enhance the quality of life for its 1.2 billion inhabitants.”

“The State Department’s report…is totally unacceptable,” Rep. Brown stated when the report was released.  “Instead of active support for Taiwan’s participation…, this report is a passive recital of the obstacles the PRC and its allies have raised.  The Congress called for leadership.  We don’t want to hear that ‘the Administration supports any modalities or arrangements acceptable to the membership of the WHO to allow for Taiwan to participate in the work of the organization.’  We want to hear that the Administration is taking the lead in building support for Taiwan’s participation.”

Brown continued, “We want the U.S. taking leadership to build support for [Taiwan’s observer status.]  The observer status of the Vatican, the Knights of Malta, and the PLO are noted as historically conditioned.  Now is the time, the right moment in history, for Taiwan to join the WHO with such status.”

“The Administration’s pledge to take future steps to elicit China’s blessing for Taiwan’s WHO participation defies common sense.  When I attended the World Health Assembly Geneva meeting last year,
I was shocked to see our representatives sit silently while China and Myanmar, nations with the worst records on human rights, denounced Taiwan’s membership in the WHO as a threat to Asian stability.  The last time we went through China to help the Taiwanese, victims of a catastrophic earthquake languished for three days while the U.N. waited for China’s approval to distribute aid.”

“I will ask my Congressional colleagues to mandate that the Administration vote for Taiwan’s observer status this year,” Brown concluded, “and take a vigorous leadership role with other nations to insure a positive vote for Taiwan.”

As FAPA noted in a press release at the time, the State Department report makes the U.S. look like a child unable to speak up to the PRC adult.  It reminded us of the Taiwanese saying, “Children have ears but no mouth” – they should only listen to adults and not speak out.

Even the possibility of a Taiwan non-governmental organization having relations with the WHO is blocked, says the report. Why? “The PRC would assert – and others would accept – that only it has the right to consent to the participation of a Taiwan non-governmental organization.”  This is the ultimate absurdity, paralleling the demand by Beijing that any earthquake aid to Taiwan from international organizations during Taiwan’s monster September earthquake had to get its permission.

Congress and the Taiwanese American community throughout the nation demand that the Administration take a pro-active position, not roll over and play dead because of what the PRC thinks.  Taiwan is not, and has never been, under PRC control.  The 22 million people of democratic Taiwan deserve to participate in the WHO and all international organizations.
 
 
 

  Crystal Clear” One-China Policy?

 
 “Our policy on China is crystal clear,” declared President Clinton on December 8th .  “We believe there is one China. We think [the Taiwan-China issue] has to be resolved through cross-strait dialogue, and we oppose and would view with grave concern any kind of violent action.”

Crystal clear?  What does this “one China” policy entail?  The Administration repeats the phrase like a mantra, hoping against hope that it will become a reality.  Some Administration officials have indicated that “one China” is really a principle/concept, and does not refer to a specific geographical boundary, let alone the China that is the People’s Republic of China.

Perhaps.  But, as Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) noted in his two letters to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, “the drumbeat of this phrase…has given Congress and the American public the distinct impression that the Administration has assumed the People’s Republic of China’s definition of “one China” as its own.”

Responding to Rep. Brown’s request for clarification, the State Department drew a careful line between U.S. policy and that of both “the PRC government and the Taiwanese authorities” on a “one-China” policy.
“The PRC government and their Taiwan authorities have their own “one China” policies,” the State Department reply states.  “American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Chairman and Managing Director Richard Bush was reflecting Administration policy when he said [FAPA note:7/25/99], ‘[h]ow specifically to define the ‘one-China’ principle and how concretely to realize it are best left to the two sides of the Strait on a mutually acceptable basis.’ We are willing to support any outcome voluntarily agreed to by both sides of the Taiwan Strait.”
As we said in our press release, with this answer the Administration wants to have its cake and eat it, too.  It is disingenuous for the State Department to say, in its January report on Taiwan’s participation in the World Health Organization, that it has to go hat in hand to the PRC and urge “Beijing to find ways for the people on Taiwan to participate” in the WHO and still claim US policy differs from that of China.   It is time to do some thinking outside the box concerning US policy toward China and Taiwan and not continue to claim, as President Clinton did, that US policy is “crystal clear.”
Raymond F. Burghardt, director of the American Institute in Taiwan in Taipei, expanded on the list of principles governing the US policy concerning issues in the Taiwan Strait in a 12/17 speech on the U.S. role in Asia-Pacific security:
“First, the U.S. commitment to our one-China policy as defined by the three communiqués.
Second, our insistence that the Taiwan Strait issue must be resolved peacefully.
Third, our confidence that the two sides have the creativity to resolve the issue on their own, without U.S. mediation.
Fourth, our refusal to pressure either side to accept any arrangement it does not believe is in its interests.
Fifth, an understanding that any arrangements between Beijing and Taipei should be on a mutually acceptable basis, not imposed by one side or the other.
Sixth, an understanding that because Taiwan is a democracy, any arrangements between the two sides ultimately have to be acceptable to the Taiwan public.
Finally, a willingness to support any outcome that is voluntarily agreed to by both sides of the Taiwan Strait.”
While we deeply appreciate US support for a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan Strait issue, this policy only gives the people of Taiwan a veto over decisions they don’t like, not an affirmative voice on the future of Taiwan.  If this had been an offer accepted by the American colonies in the 18th century, the US would still not be an independent country unless the British had agreed.
FAPA, along with Rep. Brown, believes that the 22 million people of democratic Taiwan would best be served by a One China, One Taiwan Policy, as described in House Resolution 166.

Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), one of Taiwan’s strongest friends in Congress, was recently injured in a car accident.  He is expected to recover fully.  Get well cards can be sent to his office: 201 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515
 

 Taiwan Election Comments
 Richard Bush, chair of the American Institute in Taiwan, visited with the three main presidential candidates while in Taiwan in December, and noted the democratic development of the island, saying, “In about three months, Taiwan will hold its second direct democratically contested presidential election.  This will be another milestone in Taiwan’s remarkable democratic development.  The people of the island have the special opportunity and solemn responsibility to pick the leaders who will serve them for the next four years.”

“What is the attitude of the United States towards the results of the Taiwan’s upcoming election,” Bush asked rhetorically.  “First of all,” he continued, “the United States does not favor one candidate over another or one party over another.  We vigorously have supported the transformation of Taiwan into a democratic system, and we’re pleased that the people of Taiwan would now have the ability to choose their high leaders.  This is their right and their responsibility, and we will work with whomever they choose to be their next president and vice president.”

“The United States will focus on the policies that the newly elected president pursues, and whether they promote the fundamental interests of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait which are so important to the United States.  If the new Taiwan administration’s policy converges with our own interests, then there will be no problem.  If they do not, then we will discuss the differences in a spirit of friendship.”

Bush concluded his statement by saying; “The traditional bonds of friendship between the people of the United States and the people of Taiwan remain as strong and vibrant as ever.  As Taiwan and its new leaders enter the new century, they can count on the United States to pursue a steady and constructive policy toward East Asia and the Taiwan Strait area. We will adhere to our one-China policy.  We will insist on a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan Strait issue. And we are confident that creative and constructive dialogue between the two sides of the Strait provides the means to bring about, on a mutually acceptable basis, a lasting peace in this important region.

Jim Mann, in the 1/26/00 Los Angeles Times: “One of the first big developments of 2000 could well be an epochal change in Chinese politics: the downfall of the Kuomintang, or Nationalist Party. …On March 18, Taiwan will hold presidential elections. And as things stand now, the KMT--despite the abundant resources it commands as one of the world's richest political parties--seems headed for a historic defeat.

…Lien Chan, is saddled with the KMT's image as a scandal-ridden party. He is also having difficulty trying to come out from behind the shadow of the president he now serves. Moreover, Taiwanese of all stripes regard him as plodding and risk-averse.

[T]he DPP's Chen Shui-bian has made a disciplined drive for political power by moderating his party's long-standing support for Taiwan's independence. Chen stressed that he believes Taiwan is already a sovereign and independent country whose future should be decided by its own 22 million people.

But he also promised not to enshrine in Taiwan's Constitution President Lee's claim last summer that Taiwan should have "special state-to-state relations" with China. Indeed, astonishingly, the DPP candidate said he was willing to talk with top Chinese leaders about their bottom-line demand that Taiwan's future be settled under the rubric of "one China."

"We do not exclude any possibility," Chen said. "For example, what exactly does 'one China' mean? What's its content? And what are the benefits of 'one China' for the Taiwanese people? I would be willing to hear from . . . [Chinese] President Jiang [Zemin]. . . . I think we can discuss 'one China.' "

…While Soong is personally popular, his campaign has been damaged by the revelation that while in the KMT, he controlled a secret fund of several million dollars to channel funds to various Taiwan political figures.

…"We want to put an end to the historic dispute between the Chinese Communist Party and the KMT," Chen Shui-bian said last week, suggesting that it's time for someone else in Taiwan to try to deal with Beijing.

     All dynasties eventually fall. This could be the KMT's year.