 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
SENATE RECORD VOTE ANALYSIS
TEMPORARY
105th Congress
2nd Session
July 10, 1998, 9:36 a.m.
Page S- 7918 Temp. Record
2nd Session Vote No. 196
U.S. SUPPORT FOR TAIWAN/Passage
SUBJECT:
A resolution expressing the United States' continued support for Taiwan . . . S.Con. Res. 107. Passage.
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION AGREED TO, 92-0
SYNOPSIS:
As introduced and passed, S.Con. Res.
107, a resolution expressing the United States' continued support for Taiwan,
affirms that Congress:
- is committed to Taiwan and the people
of Taiwan, in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8);
- expects, consistent with the Taiwan
Relations Act, that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means,
and considers any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than
peaceful means a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific and of
grave concern to the United States;
- is committed, consistent with the
Taiwan Relations Act, to making available to Taiwan such defense articles and
services in such quantities as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a
sufficient self-defense capability; and
- is committed, consistent with the
Taiwan Relations Act, to having the President and Congress determine the nature
and quantity of defense articles and services for Taiwan based solely upon their
judgment of the needs of Taiwan.
The resolution also urges the President
of the United States to seek a public renunciation by the People's Republic of
China of any use of force, or threat to use force, against democratic Taiwan.
The resolution contains the following
findings:
- at no time since the establishment of
the People's Republic of China has Taiwan been under the control of the People's
Republic of China;
- the United States began its long,
peaceful relationship with Taiwan in 1949;
- since the enactment of the Taiwan
Relations Act in 1979, the policy of the United States has been based on the
expectation that the future relationship between the People's Republic of China
and Taiwan would be determined by peaceful means;
- in March, 1996, the People's Republic
of China held provocative military exercises, including missile launch exercises
in the Taiwan Strait, in an attempt to intimidate the people of Taiwan during
their historic, free, and democratic presidential election;
- officials of the People's Republic of
China refuse to renounce the use of force against democratic Taiwan;
- Taiwan has achieved significant
political and economic strength as one of the world's premier democracies and as
the nineteenth largest economy in the world;
- Taiwan is the United States' seventh
largest trading partner and imports more than twice as much annually as does the
People's Republic of China; and
- no treaties exist between the People's
Republic of China and Taiwan that determine the future status of Taiwan.
Those favoring passage contended:
During President Clinton's recent trip to
China, he made the following statement: "I had a chance to reiterate our Taiwan
policy, which is that we don't support independence for Taiwan, or two Chinas,
or one Taiwan-1 China. And we don't believe that Taiwan should be a member of
any organization for which statehood is a requirement." This statement is very
troubling for a number of reasons. First, it publicly and explicitly echoes the
communist Chinese government's "three noes": no independence for Taiwan, no
recognition for a separate Taiwanese government, and no support for Taiwan's
membership in international organizations. The Clinton Administration has argued
that the United States has implicitly supported these principles in the past.
However, it has never before been explicitly stated by a United States
President, and the fact is that the policy has always been a great deal more
complex and balanced. Taiwan has been a steadfast ally for decades. The United
States supports it militarily, and by law it has committed to supporting it
militarily. Simply spouting the Chinese communist party line, without any
qualifying statements such as that the United States supports only a peaceful
settlement of Taiwan's status, makes it appear to be a major change in U.S.
policy, and even a total abandonment of Taiwan. Second, the gravity of the
statement is compounded by the fact that it was made in Shanghai, China, which
is the site of the infamous (in the eyes of Taiwan) "Shanghai Communique" of
1972 in which the United States moved closer to recognizing the People's
Republic of China as the legitimate government of China. Choosing this site
makes it appear even more to be a deliberate change in policy. Third, this
statement bears all of the markings of a quid pro quo. The communists gave
President Clinton the opportunity to make four live statements on Chinese radio
and television. The appearance is that in return, President Clinton met with
officials in Tiananmen Square (the site of the communist slaughter of
pro-democracy, peaceful protestors) and that he made this statement in Shanghai.
Fourth, we believe that President Clinton's statement can be read to mean that
the United States will oppose independence for Taiwan under any and all
circumstances, even if Taiwan is attacked by China or the Taiwanese people vote
overwhelmingly for independence. We remind our colleagues that on June 12, 1950,
then-Secretary of State Dean Acheson made a remark about Korea not being in the
United States' sphere of interest, and that statement was enough to convince
Russia and China that the United States was giving them a green light to back a
war against South Korea. We also remind them that China has refused to renounce
the use of force against Taiwan, and we remind them that China has conducted
missile exercises off the coast of Taiwan in 2 of the last 4 years. The
President's remark clearly is not in line with the United States' policy on
Taiwan. We in Congress need to vote in favor of this resolution to correct the
misimpression that was made by the President's statement. We urge our colleagues
to adopt this resolution unanimously.
No arguments were expressed in opposition
to passage.
VOTING YEA:
Republicans:
(48 or 100%) Abraham, Allard, Bennett,
Bond, Brownback, Burns, Campbell, Chafee, Coats, Cochran, Collins, Coverdell,
Craig, D'Amato, DeWine, Enzi, Faircloth, Frist, Gorton, Gramm, Grams, Grassley,
Gregg, Hagel, Hatch, Helms, Hutchinson, Inhofe, Jeffords, Kempthorne, Lott,
Lugar, Mack, McConnell, Murkowski, Roberts, Roth, Santorum, Sessions, Shelby
Smith, Bob Smith, Gordon, Specter, Stevens, Thomas, Thompson, Thurmond, Warner
Democrats:
(44 or 100%) Akaka, Baucus, Biden, Boxer,
Breaux, Bryan, Bumpers, Byrd, Cleland, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin,
Feingold, Feinstein, Ford, Glenn, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Johnson,
Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Kohl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman,
Mikulski, Moseley-Braun, Moynihan, Murray, Reed, Reid, Robb, Rockefeller,
Sarbanes, Torricelli, Wellstone, Wyden
VOTING NAY:
Republicans:
(0 or 0%)
Democrats:
(0 or 0%)
NOT VOTING:
Republicans:
(7) Ashcroft, Domenici, Hutchison, Kyl,
McCain, Nickles, Snowe
Democrats:
(1) Bingaman
Compiled and written by the staff of the Republican Policy Committee
Larry E. Craig, Chairman
This
material is produced independently for NTI by the James Martin
Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of
International Studies and does not necessarily reflect the
opinions of and has not been independently verified by NTI or
its directors, officers, employees, agents. Copyright © 2007 by
MIIS.
