FAPA NEWS  ( October, 1999)

A Major Victory for Taiwan
by Chen Wen-yen, FAPA President

     October 26, 1999 will go down as an important date in the history of Taiwan and FAPA’s efforts to insure a secure future for our native land.  On that date, the House International Relations Committee passed the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act (TSEA) by a vote of 32-6, sending it to the House floor.

    This was truly a great FAPA effort.  You, our FAPA members across the country, sent over 2000 letters to your Members of Congress in support of this bill.  A total of 70 FAPA activists spent three days in Washington, attending workshops on this legislation and lobbying their Members directly on Capitol Hill.  Finally, our fine staff, led by Coen Blaauw and Echo Lin, did the daily work of contacting offices, pressing for co-sponsorship of the bill, writing opinion pieces, and working with Hill staffers on details and negotiations.

    Thanks to these combined efforts, in the face of strong opposition by the Clinton Administration - as evidenced by the surprise presence of Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Stanley Roth, the House International Relations Committee overwhelmingly passed the TSEA, as amended by Chairman Benjamin Gilman (R-NY) and ranking Democrat Sam Gejdenson (D-CT).

    At a Nov. 4th press conference, Gilman indicated that it “does not appear the bill will be adopted before Congress goes out on recess.”  The reason, Gilman said, was that “the Administration had weighed in against the bill on our leadership, calling it a provocative measure” that might jeopardize the WTO negotiations.  Gilman said he “prefers to see the vote at the earliest possible date” so that China does not get any muddled signal because of the delay in voting on the House floor.

    Even if the TSEA gets no further in the US legislative process than this vote, it has already
played an important role in forcing an open debate on U.S. policy toward  Taiwan.  Many recent speeches and articles by policy analysts comment on the TSEA and its implications for US-China and US-Taiwan relations.
      In fact, the morning of the House mark-up, the Nixon Center hosted a briefing on the TSEA with former CIA Director R. James Woolsey as the keynote speaker.  A host of former government officials with experience in foreign policy, and particularly Asian issues, were on hand, including American Institute in Taiwan Chair Richard Bush.

    Woolsey pulled no punches as he ripped the Clinton Administration's policy toward Taiwan as "wrong-headed and dangerous" and said it was time for "Congress to try to correct it."  The Administration's policy was, in fact, "appeasement of Beijing, there is no other word for it," Woolsey claimed.  Current policy is "undercutting a small nation's ability to resist a dictatorship," he went on, giving his definition of appeasement.  The package of U.S. moves regarding Taiwan "taken together are a dangerous stance, potentially even a tragic one.  When dictators see prey, they need to be clearly deterred," he warned.

    The Executive Branch needs to be "brought up short," Woolsey concluded.  "This bill does that and therefore I support it."

    Robert Suettinger, former Clinton National Security Council staffer, noting his discomfort at having to "respond to my old boss," said he disagreed “on virtually all counts."  Pointing to the details of the Administration's policy, Suettinger stated that "to accuse the Administration of appeasement is to substitute rhetoric for reality."  There is, he  claimed, "no ambiguity as to what the U.S. will do if Taiwan is attacked" and "Taiwan should be more secure than ever concerning the U.S. intent" in this regard.  "I hope this bill does not get out of committee," Suettinger concluded, because it is "not in Taiwan's interests."

    While using a more diplomatic tone than Woolsey, Gilman recounted his problems with the Clinton Administration's policy in his opening remarks on October 26th.   "In the absence of decisive Administration action" in support of Taiwan, he stated, "Congress must act."  He said he was "troubled by the  Clinton Administration's handling of Taiwan policy in general, including the pressure it has unwisely placed on Taiwan to come to interim agreements with China regarding unification; its unwillingness to sell some defensive weapon systems to Taiwan irrespective of China's military advances; its talk of a strategic partnership with Beijing; the Three No's; and the consequences these misguided actions have for peace and stability in the region."

    Gejdenson noted that the Congress wanted to dialogue with the Administration" but warned that Members "deserved to be heard."  He set the legislation in the context of the worldwide tension between democratic and non-democratic forces.  "For a long time," Gejdenson stated, "Taiwan was not a democracy.  But now it is a full-fledged democracy confronted by the largest totalitarian state in the world."  The legislation was "not provocative" but a show of Congressional support for Taiwan.  "If China wants this kind of  respect," he ended, then it should show respect for human life and human rights.

    Rep. Doug Bereuter (R-NE), chair of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee, noted his efforts to correct factually inappropriate elements in the original version of the bill as well as any suggestions that this legislation would reverse the Taiwan Relations Act or reimplement the 1954 Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan.  He said he "frankly has done everything to delay" the legislation until these changes were made and also to insure that its consideration would not be used as an excuse for China not to come to a WTO agreement.  He did not want either the Chinese or the Clinton Administration claiming that Republicans had snafued a WTO agreement by voting for this legislation.

    Then the mark-up turned testy.  Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) took the floor to be the point person for the Administration's opposition to the bill.  He called the bill "unneeded and counterproductive" and said that as the ranking Democrat on the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee he had "chosen not to support" it.  Noting that he was proud to be one of Taiwan's strongest supporters in Congress, Lantos argued that the "underlying assumption in this legislation was that the Taiwan Relations Act is not working and  needs to be fixed.  Precisely the opposite is true," Lantos continued.

    Then Lantos opened the door for some bar room fighting.  "This legislation," he claimed, "was crafted for partisan reasons and not because reality required it."  It was "designed to embarrass the Administration....  It
will dramatically circumscribe this and any future Administration.  My hope is that here and on the floor of the House we will have a full discussion and debate."

     Howard Berman (D-CA), as one of the original bill's co-sponsors, had some trouble picking up the "partisan" theme.  Instead he chose to attack Gilman's analysis of the Clinton policy as "straight from the Republican Campaign Committee" and a piece that "could be used in the [upcoming] presidential campaign." He challenged Gilman to document how the Administration "forced Taiwan to come to agreements with China."

    Gary Ackerman (D-NY), another co-sponsor, continued this line of attack.   Gilman’s phrase "undue pressure" was a provocative statement, he claimed.  He challenged Gilman to give specifics regarding his statement that the Administration had failed to meet Taiwan's legitimate defense needs.  He challenged Gilman to name weapons requests that had been made by Taiwan and turned down by the Administration.

    Gilman, good New Yorker that he is, picked up the challenge.  He called Kurt Campbell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, to the witness stand and asked him point blank whether Taiwan had ever requested submarines, the AEGIS system or AMRAAM missiles and been turned down.  Thoroughly uncomfortable, Campbell said that the question of weapons requests by Taiwan was a complex issue and that he would be happy to discuss specific items in closed session with the Committee.

    "Just give me a yes or no answer to each item," Gilman said.  "Stop badgering an Administration witness," Ackerman heckled.  "Yes or no," Gilman asked again.  Campbell gave a general answer stating that there were a number of requests, unofficial and official, which the US had discouraged, a number of suggestions by the US that Taiwan has turned down, and some suggestions that Taiwan sought not to pursue.  Again, he noted, I would be happy to give specifics in closed session.

    Discussion of the legislation continued, with strong statements of support from Members like Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and questions of concern from others.  Matt Salmon (R-AZ) followed Lantos' lead and called the legislation "counterproductive," noting that "TECRO had not asked for this" bill.  He went on to say that "TECRO and the PRC see no threat of China attacking Taiwan unless it declares independence."

 Sherrod Brown (D-OH) said he did not believe that the solution was "more bombs" but rather urged that the "One China policy" be put in the scrap heap and that a move toward a One China - One Taiwan policy begin.

    A motion to table the legislation so that the Committee could study it further was discussed at length.  Finally, Gejdenson forcefully intervened, stating his belief that the motion should be defeated and the legislation passed.  The Committee then voted to do precisely that: defeating the motion by 30-9 and passing the legislation.

     As we go to press, it is still unclear when Congress will go on recess.  Most probably, the House will not have a floor vote on TSEA before adjourning. While it is not possible to get additional House co-sponsors now, we should encourage all Members of Congress to support the Gilman/Gejdenson version.  We need to get  as strong a House vote as possible, and then we want Senators to co-sponsor the amended version when it is introduced in the Senate

    After Gilman gaveled the mark-up to a close, Roth told reporters that the Administration believed the legislation was "destabilizing in the current context."  Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue called the bill a potential threat to Sino-US relations.  "The bill violates China's sovereignty and it brutally interferes with China's internal affairs.  China expresses strong indignation and firm opposition to the bill," she stated.

    Meanwhile, Taiwanese-Americans who so strongly supported the legislation and let their Congressional Members know about it were dancing in the streets.  Thanks to everyone who made the dance possible!
 

More Commentary on the TSEA

    As noted above, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act has generated much public debate about US-Taiwan relations.  The week following the House International Relations Committee vote on TSEA several noteworthy articles appeared in the press.

    An October 29th Wall Street Journal editorialized:
 “A Congressional committee voted Tuesday in favor of legislation that would increase military support for Taiwan. This preliminary vote by the House International Relations Committee, let alone the floor vote-to-come, has already brought forth a fresh round of sputtering from Beijing. There's been plenty of sputtering from Washington too, from Administration officials such as Stanley Roth, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific affairs, who earlier
condemned the bill as a "potentially dangerous vote against a policy that has worked through four administrations and continues to work today."

    “Mr. Roth has it backward. In fact, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act is an attempt to restore U.S. policy to the one that worked well through four administrations, but which the Clinton Administration knocked out of kilter. It sends an important message to Beijing: that despite any intimations to the contrary from the Clinton Administration, the U.S. will abide by its long-standing commitments to Taiwan.”

    David M. Lampton, director of China Studies at SAIS and the Nixon Center, wrote a particularly nasty opinion piece in the Outlook section of the  Oct.31st Washington Post.

    “The most dangerous piece of foreign policy legislation in memory is moving  through Congress.  It …ought to be called the Taiwan Security Reduction Act.”

    “If enacted, the legislation would diminish Taiwan’s security, alarm friends and allies and greatly increase the chances of armed conflict between America and China.  Though a watered-down version of the act probably soon will pass the House, its future is less certain in the Senate.  If the bill passes the Senate too, the president must (and I believe will) veto it.  It the president rolls over, the American people can expect renewed military tension in the Taiwan Strait.  Taiwan citizens will risk falling markets, fleeing capital and diminished security.  Washington can forget Sino-American cooperation on major issues.  And East Asia can prepare for an arms race.”

    We understand that Senators Helms and Torricelli are preparing a rebuttal to Lampton’s piece.  FAPA has sent a letter to the Editor which has yet to be published.  In it we state:

    “Professor David Lampton, who has devoted his career to bettering US-China relations, does both Taiwan and himself a great disservice with his op-ed against what he contemptuously calls ‘The Taiwan Security Reduction Act’ (10/31).”

    “The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act (TSEA) is not the result, as Lampton would have us think, of Congress being bought off by a “river of money” from Taiwan.  Members of Congress, not high-paid lobbyists, crafted this legislation because they are concerned that the Clinton Administration is not implementing the intent and spirit of the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act.
Taiwanese-Americans, worried about Chinese threats to the security of their families and friends, have sent thousands of letters to Congress asking support for this bill.”

    “The ‘genuine problem’ is neither, as Lampton would have it, ‘ambiguity’ in U.S. policy nor ‘provocative’ behavior by Taiwan.  The problem is China the provocateur.  Chinese authorities have never renounced the use of force against Taiwan – a proviso always considered vital by the US.  China fired missiles not just ‘in the direction’ of Taiwan  in 1996 but 8-10 miles off its two major ports creating, in effect, a blockade of the island.  China currently has 150 missiles directly aimed at Taiwan and will have 600 by the year 2005.  Finally, as a February 1999 Pentagon report clearly details, China has proceeded with a military modernization and buildup program that poses an unprecedented threat to Taiwan’s security as well as the peace and stability of East Asia.”

    “This bill seeks to redress the imbalance of military power across the Taiwan Strait and give a clear signal to Beijing, unlike the uncertain trumpets of Dean Acheson regarding Korea and April Glaspie regarding Kuwait, that force is not an acceptable negotiating tactic.”

     “As citizens of this great country, we believe that the TSEA is in the best interests of both the United States and Taiwan.  This legislation will make for better US-Taiwan and better US-China relations.”

    FAPA members in the Washington Post reading area might also want to write letters to the editor in response to Lampton’s article.

    John Bolton, former Bush Administration official, analyzed the TSEA’s political importance in a Nov.4th WashingtonTimes piece.

    “U.S. foreign policy frequently evolves from the clash between Congress and the president, and perhaps nowhere is that more demonstrably true in the last several decades than on U.S. policy toward Taiwan…”

    “Democratic Party strategists are concerned that a full-scale Senate debate on TSEA during the presidential nomination contest will reflect adversely on Vice President Al Gore because of his important role in helping formulate the Clinton administration’s foreign policy.  Similarly, however, Republicans are sensitive to the risk that they will be assailed as reckless and irresponsible, especially if Beijing steps up its saber rattling at the same time.”
    “At this point, however, the odds favor TSEA passage, although perhaps with further modifications.  The Democratic Party is not likely to stand united with the president, and there have already been significant  defections from his position, such as TSEA co-sponsors Rep. Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, and Sen. Robert Torricelli, New Jersey Democrat.  Particularly because Republicans see foreign policy issues working in their favor in the presidential campaign, there is little doubt that they will press ahead for TSEA enactment.  If it is adopted, political strategists believe Mr. Clinton would be hard pressed to veto the bill during the campaign for fear of reopening the debate over his foreign policy.  That, at least, is the strategy of TSEA advocates, and it has proven correct so far.”
 

SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE ADOPTS BROWN BILL ON TAIWAN’S PARTICIPATION IN THE WHO

    On Nov. 3rd the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously passed H.R. 1794, the Sherrod Brown (D-OH) bill calling for Taiwan’s “appropriate and meaningful participation in the World Health Organization” and requiring a report to Congress from the Secretary of State not later than Jan.1, 2000 on “efforts of the secretary to fulfill the commitment made in the 1994 Taiwan Policy Review to more actively support Taiwan’s participation in international organizations.”

    Thanks to Echo Lin’s work with Senator Frank Murkowski’s staff, the Senator issued a press release calling on his Senate colleagues to pass the bill before the end of this year’s session to help Taiwan quickly enter the WHO.

    “The Clinton administration, as part of its Taiwan Policy Review in 1994, pledged to actively support Taiwan’s membership in international organizations that accept non-states as members and to look for ways to have Taiwan’s voice heard in international organizations where membership is not possible. The Administration has let six years go by without taking concrete steps to advance this policy,”  Murkowski stated.

    Taiwan, the Senator noted, “clearly deserves to participate in WHO-organized forums and workshops on ways to control disease.”

    The pressure on the State Department to implement the 1994 Review was also reflected earlier this year in the Senate version of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act.

    Section 722 of this Act requires regular six-month reports by the secretary of state on the status of administration efforts to support both “membership of Taiwan in international organizations that do not require statehood as a prerequisite to such membership” and the “appropriate level of participation by Taiwan in international organizations that may require statehood as a prerequisite to full membership.”

     Report elements specified in Section 722 include: (1) a comprehensive list of the international organizations in which the US government supports the membership or participation of Taiwan; (2) a description in detail of the efforts of the US government to achieve the membership or participation of Taiwan in each organization listed; and (3) identification of the obstacles to the membership or participation of Taiwan in each organization listed, including a list of any governments that do not support the membership or participation of Taiwan in such organization.

   With these efforts, Congress is pressing the Administration to move on its Taiwan policy.  As Rep. Brown stated when supporting HR 1794: “No matter how dire the situation, the human rights of the Taiwanese people take a back seat to Cold War geopolitics that frankly no longer serve a useful purpose.  And unless we start doing something about it, unless we start taking action to stick up for what’s right and start helping Taiwan instead of hindering it, then we’ll wind up letting China’s dictators think they can continue to deny people their fundamental human rights.”

    Brown concluded: “Today we are taking a step in the right direction, because regardless of the One China policy, access to first rate medical care is a fundamental human right.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – children cry the same tears whether they’re in Lorain, Ohio or Taipei, Taiwan.”

Senator Robert Torricelli:
“FAPA is the principal link between Congress and Taiwan”

    “FAPA is a very important organization in our country,” Senator Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) stated at a FAPA hosted luncheon on October 13th.  “It  is the principal link between Congress and Taiwan.”

     Speaking to an audience of Taiwanese-Americans and a joint DPP-KMT Legislative Yuan delegation, Torricelli said that he had helped write the TSEA in order to “build up Taiwan’s security and send a clear signal” to China.  “The best security for Taiwan,” Torricelli continued, “is for China to have no doubt about the U.S. reaction” to any use of force by China against Taiwan.”

    Torricelli said that he hoped 10 to 15 more Senators would co-sponsor the TSEA so that it would get “real attention and the Administration will have to deal with us.”

Senator Edward Kennedy:
“Taiwan Is In My Heart”

    “Every day I go to my office and Taiwan is in my heart,” Senator Edward Kennedy told a breakfast gathering of Taiwanese-Americans in Washington on October 13th.   Kennedy then pointed to a lion dance painting given him by Los Angeles area Taiwanese when he was running for president in 1980.  The Senator noted that the painting hangs in a prominent place in his campaign office.

    At the meeting , which was also attended by a joint  DPP-KMT Legislative Yuan delegation headed by Deputy Speaker Yao Eng-chi, Kennedy said that he would study the TSEA “closely and be in touch with you to find out how we can be a positive force.”  He also said he would talk to Senators Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) about the bill.

    Kennedy remarked on his interest in exploring the possibilities for Taiwan to be represented in both the UN and WHO so that Taiwan “could have a voice and have its interests protected.”  He also noted that he was a member of the Force Projection subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee and that this subcommittee had “a special importance in terms of Taiwan.”

    Kennedy thanked those present for their “terrific effort” and for “bringing me up to date.”  He promised that he would work with the community to be “helpful and constructive” on Taiwan issues.
 
 

 FAPA 19th ANNUAL MEETING Of the BOARD of DIRECTORS

FAPA will hold its 19th Annual meeting of the Board of Directors in Washington, D.C. this December.  We strongly urge all the Board members to attend this important event, during which we will discuss FAPA’s policy, determine future programs, and elect major officers including President, Vice President, and Standing Committee Members.

This year, Senator Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) will attend the Annual Meeting.  There will be an opportunity to have an in-depth discussion with the Senator.

Please make your flight reservations for Washington National Airport (DCA).  We encourage you to arrive on Friday evening (December 3).  Shuttle service is provided till 10:00pm (15 minutes from DCA).  We look forward to seeing you.

Time:  December 4-5, 1999
Place:  Four Points Sheraton
(listed as Best Western before)
        2480 South Glebe Rd., Arlington, VA
Tel:   (703) 979-4400
 

1999 FAPA Election Announcement
October 28, 1999

By FAPA Election Rule 1.15, the 1999 FAPA Election Committee releases the result of the 1999 FAPA election of Members of Board as following—(in alphabetical order by state):

 Yen-sen Chen (AL)
Ben Lin (CA-LA)
Larry Wang (CA-N)
Wen-yen Chen (DC)
Song Y. Lee(FL-S)
S. S. Chang (GA)
John Chen (LA)
Ming H. Land (NC)
Joyce Shieh (NC)
Foun-Chung Fan (NJ)
Judy Jsu-Chih Yeh (NJ)
Kenneth  Hsu (NY-R)
Jenny Wen-chen Hsu (OH-C)
K.S. Lin (OH-S)
Jay Loo (PA)
John C. Hsieh (TX-N)
Ming-chi Wu (TX-N)
Shyu-tu Lee(WA

If you have any questions, please contact the Election Committee:
Sidney S. Yang (Tel: 256-880-2893)
FAPA In Print

 Quake Politics, a Letter to the Editor printed in the 10/8 edition of The Economist.

Sir - While I hope that China will reduce tensions in the Taiwan Straits after the earthquake ("Taiwan's disaster from below", September 25th) the political fault lines remain. China's state controlled newspaper may now be calling Taiwanese their "flesh and blood" relatives, but days previous they were threatening "catastrophe" for the island if its democratically elected president, Lee Teng-hui, didn't back off his "state-to-state" formulation.

The vast majority of Taiwanese support Mr. Lee's statement and resent the fact that Taiwan's request for UN assistance had to be approved by China. It is a disgrace that the international community continues to accept China's claim over Taiwan. When will the world realize that Taiwan and China are two separate, independent countries?

It is quite sad that politics are being played out over the heads of the victims of this devastating earthquake.

Wen-yen Chen, Formosan Association for Public Affairs
 

 WASHINGTON TIMES, LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, October 2, 1999
 EARTHQUAKE ILLUSTRATES IMPORTANCE OF RECOGNIZING TAIWAN

In the aftermath of one of the worst earthquakes that has struck Taiwan in this century, an article in the Washington Times said, “The United Nations has confirmed that China’s approval was sought to send U.N. rescue coordinators to Taipei” (“Taipei assails China for delays after quake,” Sept. 25).
  It is tragic, but true.
We Taiwanese Americans are shocked by the fact that the United Nations waited for a go-ahead from China before sending its relief workers into Taiwan. It is unconscionable that the people of Taiwan, in their hour of need, had to wait for the United Nations to jump over political hurdles erected by China.
Now that people are fighting for their lives, it is more apparent than ever that the continued denial of Taiwan’s status as an independent nation and its disqualification from participation in the international community is dangerous and simply wrong.
Ironically, the United States is partly to blame. The 1972 Shanghai Communiqué states: “The U.S. acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is part of China.”  The United States did not declare that it agreed with or endorsed China’s stance; it merely acknowledged that position.
The constant use of “our one-China policy” by Clinton administration officials has moved the U.S. away from its originally neutral stance towards a stance that places Taiwan at China’s mercy. It has laid the foundation for China’s continued military menace over Taiwan and for Taiwan’s exclusion from organizations such as the United Nations or the World Health Organization.
The good news is that President Lee Teng-hui’s July 9 declaration that from now on Taiwan’s relationship with China is to be on a state-to-state basis now forces the United States to rethink its diplomatic, political, economic, and military attitude towards Taiwan.
The reality is that Taiwan is not a part of China but that Taiwan is a de facto independent country. So a new formulation of U.S. policy is needed - a “one China, one Taiwan policy.” And not a small part of this new policy must be vigorous support for Taiwan’s voice to be directly and fully heard in the United Nations and its affiliated organizations.
The unfortunate lesson we have learned from this earthquake disaster is that recognizing Taiwan’s independence is imperative to the lives of Taiwan’s people. Without this recognition, the world will continue to deny safety and security to Taiwan’s citizens.

WEN-YEN CHEN
President, Formosan Association for Public Affairs