Tancredo Slams State Department for Negroponte Comments, Failure to Follow Law, Hypocrisy on Taiwan

Urges Bush Administration to Support Freedom and Democracy Instead of Acting as China’s “Bag Man”

(WASHINGTON, DC) – U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo released the following letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, criticizing the administration for pandering to China and failing to manage U.S.-Taiwan relations in an evenhanded or effective way:

I was disappointed to read Deputy Secretary of State Negroponte’s comments earlier this week criticizing a proposed referendum that will be held in Taiwan next year. Unfortunately, I believe that his statements were just the latest example of this administrations total mishandling of our bilateral relationship with Taiwan.

Mr. Negroponte told a Hong Kong-based media outlet on Monday that Taiwan’s efforts to hold a democratic plebiscite would constitute a move “towards a declaration of independence of Taiwan.” Mr. Negroponte’s decision to parrot this phrase (a phrase used often by the Chinese government) was both regrettable and irresponsible. Not surprisingly, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman immediately “took note” of and “applauded” this reckless comment, as it supports precisely the kind of justification the Chinese are searching for to invoke Article 8 of the so-called anti-secession law and take military action against Taiwan. If Mr. Negroponte’s goal was to help validate a future Chinese attack on the island, then he most certainly succeeded.

Mr. Negroponte also insinuated that President Chen violated his commitment to the so-called “Five No’s,” telling Phoenix TV that “President Chen has made commitments to the American President, to the international community, and to the people of Taiwan not to take any kind of steps that would represent a unilateral alteration of the status quo, such as a change in the official name of Taiwan.”

Putting aside for a moment the irony that a State Department official would express discomfort with the idea that someone might refer to “Taiwan” as “Taiwan” (after all, the State Department’s own guidelines direct executive branch officials to refer to Taiwan as “Taiwan,” and our de facto embassy on island is called the “American Institute in Taiwan”), the statement was, at best, a half-truth. Like many at the State Department, Mr. Negroponte seems to suffer from a case of selective hearing when it comes to what President Chen actually said in his first inaugural speech. This is disappointing but not surprising, as the department has repeatedly and pathologically mischaracterized President Chen’s “Five No’s” commitment over the last several years.

“[A]s long as the CCP regime has no intention to use military force against Taiwan, I pledge that during my term in office, I will not declare independence, I will not change the national title, I will not push forth the inclusion of the so-called "state-to-state" description in the Constitution, and I will not promote a referendum to change the status quo in regards to the question of independence or unification.”

Time and time again, the Department fails to mention the fact that President Chen’s “Five No’s” were contingent on the Chinese government not threatening to use force against the island. Last year, when I pointed this out to Ambassador Zoellick during a House International Relations Committee hearing, he told me that President Chen had never included any such caveat – despite the fact that I was holding a copy of President Chen’s speech in my hand at the time.

In 2005, the Chinese government explicitly threatened to use force when it passed the so-called “anti-secession law.” So why is it that the Department continues to leave this rather important detail out whenever they reference President Chen’s promises?

It is also frustrating that the Department seems unable to address China and Taiwan in an evenhanded way when it comes to cross-strait developments. While the administration is fond of saying it opposes “unilateral moves by either side to change the status-quo,” in practice State Department officials seem to reserve harsh rebukes only for actions taken by the democratically elected government in Taiwan.

For example the department was vehement in criticizing President Chen’s recent efforts to rename a few businesses on the island as a “move toward independence.” Compare the State Department’s reaction to this relatively trivial initiative (which even the State Department admitted was “administrative” in nature) to that of China’s adoption of the “anti-secession law” in 2005. Without question, this act (unlike President Chen’s name rectification efforts) constituted a very real change in the “status quo.” And yet the strongest and most direct rebuke to China that Richard Boucher could muster after its passage was “[W]e think it’s important for both sides to focus on dialogue.” The best then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan could do at the time was to characterize the law as “unfortunate” and “unhelpful.” And what about China’s ongoing missile buildup opposite Taiwan on its southeastern coast? Why does the Department not speak out more frequently and forcefully about this change in the status-quo?

I am also disappointed with the handling of President Chen’s recent transit requests. State has made it increasingly difficult for senior Taiwanese leaders to visit the United States, despite the plain wording of Public Law 103-416 which explicitly states that the President of Taiwan “shall be admitted” to the United States for discussion with federal and state officials. Why does the Department continue to ignore this law and circumvent the intent of Congress by preventing President Chen from visiting the lower 48 states, instead relegating him to only short transits in far-flung places like Alaska and Guam? Does the department view the law as simply a suggestion? It is also important to note that State’s treatment of President Chen’s requests in this restrictive manner serves to further shrink Taiwan’s international breathing space – which directly contradicts the Department’s stated policy of assisting Taiwan in obtaining “meaningful participation” in the international arena.

Finally, I do not understand why the Department has expressed so much discomfort with Taiwan’s United Nations initiative. Characterizing the effort as some kind of change in the “status-quo” is quite a stretch when one considers that Taiwan has attempted to join the UN nearly every year since 1993. None of the islands previous attempts to join the world body have prompted the kind of denunciations we now hear from folks like Mr. Negroponte. Why? Is it because this time President Chen has demonstrated the temerity to put the question to his people in a democratic referendum?

The State Department has been quick to reference promises that President Chen made in his inaugural speech lately, so I would like to take this opportunity to reference a promise that President Bush made in one of his. In his second inaugural, President Bush boldly told the world “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand for you.”

Secretary Rice, Taiwan is standing for its freedom. Its people should be applauded, not chastised, for exercising the rights and freedoms that they have earned during their long journey from dictatorship to democracy. I sincerely hope that America will stand with the people of democratic Taiwan, as President Bush promised we would – rather than standing with their oppressors in Beijing.

I think a fish stinks from the head.

Condi, like other actors in this flawed administration, are merely reflecting Administration policy on issues - which is a good reason why patriotic conservatives should in no way serve in any policy related capacity in this administration.

Another flawed Republican, Richard Nixon, initiated these problems by opening relations with this peculiar Soviet style slave state. Other administrations continued to pander to them in the belief that free trade with the mainland fascist state of Red China would produce benefits in the way of increased freedoms. The only benefits thus far have accrued to the rulers of the slave state who reap profits from producing cheap and dangerous junk exports for America which translates into more cash to bankroll the military machine they are aiming at us and the rest of the free world, and those internationalist globalists who initiated the transfer of American production to the Red Chinese. Nixon’s plan has failed. Bush II’s policies after Tienmem Square emboldened them. Bill Clinton provided them with dangerous military technology and the current administration is doing the same thing with military intelligence.

Bush has been a catastrophy. He has given us a few benefits - some apparently good conervative judicial appointees and forestalled any successful attacks on America’s heartland. He has also kept the economy going.

But he has engineered a border policy which is destroying us culturally and socially from within, alienated the Republican conservative base, engineered a war in Iraq which should have been and could have been successully concluded long ago, and failed to destroy the other major targets in the Middle East - Iran and the Syrians.

His actions have lost us control of Congress, jeopardized the 2008 elections, and undone the progress of his predecessors in the Republican Party. He has laid the ground work for the destruction of the Republican Party.

I sincerely hope, and will do all I can, to assure a victory by Duncan Hunter, or, failing that, Fred Thompson in 2008. They and Tom Tancredo, are the only Republicans capable of rectifying the damage created by this man and his administration.

In no way will I contribute to the victory of another clone of his like Rudy Giulani or Mit Romney.

Agree about Ashcroft and Bolton and Cheney. I don’t know about Rumsfeld. History will reveal how much he was responsible for the failure to prevent the Iraqi war from dragging on so long. Tennet, Minetta, Whitman, the former head of FEMA, Alberto, were ALL bad choices - either in selecting them or keeping them onboard from the Clinton catastrophy.

It appears the current push in Iraq is working militarily. WHY did the administration wait until NOW to do this? This should have been done well before the mid term elections.

Unfortunately, the American people have no stomach for protected conflicts. We lost nearly as many people at the battle of Tarawa in WW2 in just a few days as we have lost in several years in Iraq. But the Dems and their fellow travelers in the media have apparently succeeded in guttign American resolve in these battles against Islam and so the Administration should have planned and executed blitzkrieg type operations in Iraq, Syria and Iran and replacement the existing anti-American governments with stable pro-American ones.

The seeds of freedom and democracy can only flourish on fertile ground and the Islamic world is not fertile ground. As long as they are prisoners of the philosophies devised by their bandit pedophile founder, they are faced with only two choices: chaos or dictatorial rule.

It was not the only Bush’s actions that lost congress. It was Congress’ lack of action. Bush and Cheney and about 3 others made the arguments for the Iraq war while the vast majority of GOPers cut and run from the argument. This left the dems and MSM 24/7 to get their anti-war voices placed each day on the front pages and airwaves. Then Abramhoff and Foley. Couple that with relative inaction on just about everything meaningful, they were toast. Do you even remember anything Frist or Hastert or John Boehner did or said during 2006, other than Denny complaining about the raid on William Jefferson’s house?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.