Expressing Grave Concern of Congress Regarding Passage of Anti-Secession Law by National People's Congress of People's Republic of China

EXPRESSING GRAVE CONCERN OF CONGRESS REGARDING PASSAGE OF ANTI-SECESSION LAW BY NATIONAL PEOPLE'S CONGRESS OF PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA -- (House of Representatives - March 16, 2005)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 98) expressing the grave concern of Congress regarding the recent passage of the anti-secession law by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution under consideration.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?

There was no objection.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice strong support for a resolution authored by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) which expresses the grave concern of the Congress over the adoption by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China on March 14 of an anti-secession law. Beijing's ill-advised action constitutes not only a unilateral change in the current status quo in the Taiwan Strait, but also provides a legal framework for military action against Taiwan when "possibilities for a peaceful reunification have been completely exhausted."

Adoption of this law followed upon by a threat, made in China's Defense Policy White Paper, released on December 17, 2004, to "crush" any attempt to split Taiwan from China, noting its "sacred responsibility" of the People's Liberation Army to stop any attempt at splitting the country.

We are all aware as to how seriously the PLA takes its "sacred responsibility" to further the goals dictated by the Communist regime in Beijing. When the PLA was presented with a clear choice between serving the people or obeying the orders of the leaders of the Communist party on June 4, 1989, a day of infamy, the tanks rolled into Tiananmen Square and Chinese blood was spilled by fellow Chinese.

Thus, we should not assume that the attempt in the anti-secession law to provide a legal justification for the use of force against the people of Taiwan is an idle threat. History shows that this is not the case.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush, in welcoming the Chinese Premier to Washington on December 9, 2003, made Chinese policy crystal clear with regard to this issue. President Bush stated, "We oppose any unilateral decision by either China or Taiwan to change the status quo." At the time the President spoke firmly concerning attempts by Taiwan's President to unilaterally change the status quo.

Well, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Beijing's unilateral attempt to change the status quo must be vigorously opposed by both the administration and the Congress. The Congress, in particular, is obliged, under commitments made in the Taiwan Relations Act, not to remain silent when confronted by this challenge from Beijing. The Taiwan Relations Act clearly and unequivocally states: "It is the policy of the United States to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States."

Beijing's new anti-secession law clearly qualifies as such an effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means and thus represents a grave concern to the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, Beijing's reckless action comes at a time when there were signs of renewed thawing in the cross-strait relations which gave some cause for optimism over the ultimate peaceful resolution of this issue.

The commencement of the Lunar New Year's holiday of cross-strait charter flights, the continued movement of Taiwanese to the mainland, increasing cross-strait commercial investment, and the arrival of mainland representatives in Taipei to attend the funeral of a leading negotiator for Taiwan on cross-strait issues were all extremely positive signs.

It is unfortunate, however, that Beijing has chosen once again to be its own worst enemy by dissipating all the goodwill generated through such gestures by stubbornly pursuing this provocative and ill-timed measure.

Contrary to the observation of Chairman Mao, cross-strait issues will never be solved by resorting to the barrel of a gun.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov