Skip to comments.US House slams Anti-Secession Law [US Policy on China.]
Posted on 03/18/2005 1:37:47 PM PST by familyop
`HISTORIC' VOTE: Supporters of the resolution against China's new law were jubilant, saying the vote will give Rice more leverage when she locks horns with Beijing.
The US House of Representatives overwhelmingly condemned China's new "Anti-Secession" Law in a vote that one of the sponsors of the House resolution called a "victory of historic proportions," as the Senate prepared to follow suit in the next day or so.
By a 424-4 vote, the House approved a resolution calling the Anti-Secession Law a matter of "grave concern" to the US, and urging the Bush administration to "direct all appropriate officials" to press this point about the law and the "growing Chinese military threats to Taiwan in general" in their contacts with Chinese officials.
Supporters of the resolution were euphoric over the vote, which came as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice began a week-long trip to Asia that will include China. Observers said the resolution should give Rice more ammunition as she complains to Chinese leaders about the law.
Praising the vote, Representative Tom Lantos, the ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee and one of the authors of the resolution, noted, "There was total unanimity on the part of the Congress that this is no way to approach the issue of resolving long standing problems between Taiwan and the mainland."
He called the passage of the resolution a "victory of historic proportions," saying that the Anti-Secession Law is "particularly ill-advised."
Representative Robert Wexler, one of the four co-chairman of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus, said the resolution shows that "Americans will not support any measures that change the status quo as a result of a unilateral action ... We hope that China will react responsibly and reasonably and pursue a path of peace."
Representative Steve Chabot, another co-chairman of the caucus, said that China's action in passing the Anti-Secession Law was "most unfortunate."
"It is very counter-productive, and I think they're going to regret what they've done. I think it's bad for China and clearly not in the best interest of Taiwan, either," he said.
Taipei Economic and Cultural Office Representative David Lee Ta-wei (李大維), thanked the congressmen and asked for further US support, saying "we hope the US continues to take a firm and principled position on this matter. And we hope that the US will reiterate its defense commitments to Taiwan as stated in the Taiwan Relations Act, and that it will make this clear to the [People's Republic of China]."
In a ceremony on Capitol Hill after the House voted, Lee told several members of Congress who gathered to celebrate the resolution's passage of the "surprise and concern" in Taiwan in response to the Anti-Secession Law in view of some earlier positive developments in cross-strait relations.
"This sudden shift from a track of conciliation and goodwill to belligerency and threaten has understandably shaken the Taiwanese people," he said, citing the Lunar New Year flights and President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) reconciliation with People First Party chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜).
The Beijing law "seeks to impose China's will on Taiwan, shattering a long-standing status quo in which Taiwan and China have had no jurisdiction over each other for 56 years," Lee told the assembled US lawmakers.
The Beijing law also "defies the key element of the US policy toward Taiwan," that is no unilateral changes and the peaceful resolution of differences.
He made four other points in making the case that the Anti-Secession Law, in making it easier to China to engage in war with Taiwan, is "both significant and threatening."
First, it aggravates China's military threat to Taiwan. Second, it undermines the fragile stability in the Strait.
Third it "defies the fundamental basis for peace and development in the Asia Pacific region by placing China outside the regional commitment to uphold the universal values of peace, freedom, democracy, respect for human rights, and responsibility within the international community.
Fourth, it is a "direct challenge to the Taiwan Relations Act" that declares any Chinese attack on Taiwan a threat to the peace and stability of the region, and "of grave concern" to the US.
Lee also expressed the hope that in light of the anti-secession law, the EU will reconsider its decision to lift its arms embargo on China and "recognize the inherent danger of further disruption the regional balance."
In Taipei, the Presidential Office expressed gratitude over the motion passed by the US House of Representatives.
"We are thankful of the support and care extended to us from the international community during this period of time," said Presidential Office spokesman Chen Wen-tsung (陳文宗), adding that the Presidential Office believes any governments and individuals who pursue democracy and peace would find Communist China's codification of the use of "non-peaceful means" against Taiwan "unacceptable."
...another thread of note.
Russia army chief: against any form of "Taiwan Independence" activities
Wow! Only four opposed? No red ties? No red coats?
Let me guess, Bernie Sanders voted no?
Dang, I thought Congress was giving an ultamatum to those uppity South Carolinians who keep threatening to leave the Union over that new tariff..
...Hey, it's still 1830 isn't it?? </sarcasm>
McCollum (MN) McDermott Oberstar Paul
All are Democrats except Ron Paul, who is insane.
The taiwan issue is in no way analgous to the attempted secession of the southern states.
Thanks for the info....I need to update my knowledge of the history of the Free China....things seem to be cookin' in that sphere. Time to put the hammer on the Red takeover of the Mainland China...
Federal power is a lot stronger when it's the Supreme Sandwich Court, or the DNC. But maybe another rabbit will come out of congress's hat. Gingrich thinks it could result in contempt. FReegards....
I know a state judge voted no.
Erg. Wrong thread. Sorry about that.
If one reads and understands the #8 posting here, it makes all the "turmoil" appear like a Peter Sellers comedy skit.
Our elected officials have been gulled into acting like apes over this ridiculous "issue". The rest of us are guilty by association.
Is McDermott the one that claimed to be a frontline soldier during Vietnam, but it turned out he was stateside the whole time?
The guilty "Grog" barks first.
Dig those "abs"! Great "before" shot for a "6-pak Abs" commercial.
I suppose that the two examples are analgous in that both are cases of people trying to escape tyranny and be left alone on the land they live on. In both cases, no one probably has more claim to the land than the people living on it. I agree that people are naturally free and that any attempt to escape tyranny is legitimate. You are right that the US is being hypocritical to the extent that it could be said to be contradicting its position toward the southern states attempt to secede. I agree that Lincoln was a tyrant. He also has a few things in his favor. How's that?
You got that right.
If Bagdad Jim McDermott bothered to show up, I suspect he voted no.
I hadn't read this far when I said Bagdad Jim was 1 of them - I was right. I can't believe the idiots in the city of Seattle keep voting that communist scumbag in. We need a really good candidate to run against him next time and they need some $s for campaigning.
I stand by my previous assessment. He probably voted 'no' because Taiwan is not mentioned by name anywhere in the U.S. Constitution and thus any vote regarding Taiwan (or China) would be unconstitutional. He must be apoplectic that we're going after Osama & Co., given that they're not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.