Tancredo makes last minute push to end arms freeze

Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo, a good friend of Taiwan, has introduced a resolution to force the Administration to sell needed weapons to Taiwan, taking advantage of Congress' being in session for the financial market mess. Below are copies of the bill, and various press releases. Many thanks to the Congressman for his hard work on behalf of The Beautiful Island.

+++++++++++

ARMS SALES TO TAIWAN RESOLUTION INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE

On September 24, 2008, a Resolution requiring the sales of defensive arms articles to Taiwan was introduced in the House by Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO). The Resolution refers to section 3(a) of the Taiwan Relations Act, and states:

…. the defense articles and defense services described in subsection (b) shall be transferred on a sales basis to Taiwan as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act.

In the subsequent section it refers to the following specific defense items:

… diesel electric submarines or relevant designs, Mark-48 ASW torpedoes, Harpoon submarine-launched anti-ship cruise missiles, PAC–3 missile defense systems, Paladin self-propelled howitzers, Apache helicopters, mine-sweeping helicopters, and 66 F–16 C/D fighter planes that were requested by the Government of Taiwan in August 2007.

The Formosan Association for Public Affairs applauds introduction of this resolution and urges Congress to act on it before adjournment. FAPA President Bob Yang, Ph.D. stated: "The US Administration's stalling on the arms sales to Taiwan is both bad strategy and a direct violation of the Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Assurances: delaying the arms sales is playing into China's hands, which wants the sales stopped altogether, so Taiwan has increasingly less leverage in its negotiations with China."

Yang adds: "To those who have worked hard and sacrificed to help make Taiwan a free and democratic country, the American hesitations to move forward with these sales are undermining US credibility as a proponent of democracy in East Asia."

* * *

110TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION H. R.
To require the sale of certain defense articles and defense services to Taiwan.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. TANCREDO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on

A BILL

To require the sale of certain defense articles and defense
services to Taiwan.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT TO SELL CERTAIN DEFENSE ARTICLES AND DEFENSE SERVICES TO TAIWAN.

(a) REQUIREMENT.—In accordance with section 3(a) of the Taiwan Relations Act, the defense articles and defense services described in subsection (b) shall be transferred on a sales basis to Taiwan as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) DEFENSE ARTICLES AND DEFENSE SERVICES DESCRIBED.—The defense articles and defense services referred to in subsection (a) are the following: (1) The unfulfilled elements of the request made by Taiwan and approved by President George W. Bush in 2001 that includes diesel electric submarines or relevant designs, Mark-48 ASW torpedoes, Harpoon submarine-launched anti-ship cruise missiles, PAC–3 missile defense systems, Paladin self-propelled howitzers, Apache helicopters, and mine-sweeping helicopters. (2) 66 F–16 C/D fighter planes that were requested by the Government of Taiwan in August 2007.

(c) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION AND APPROVAL.—The requirement to transfer defense articles and defense services under subsection (a) shall be carried out notwithstanding the provisions for congressional notification and approval of a proposed sale of defense articles or defense services in section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(b)).

+++++++++++++++++++

Tancredo Makes Last Minute Push to Complete Stalled Taiwan Arms Sale

Bill Would Sidestep Legally Dubious Bush Administration “Freeze” And Mandate Weapons Transfer

(WASHINGTON, DC) – U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo today introduced legislation that would mandate the completion the long-stalled arms transfer from the United States to Taiwan.

The bill would require the sale of diesel-electric submarine plans, F-16 fighter jets, cruise missiles, and Apache helicopters to Taiwan. The transfer of all of these weapons systems was approved by the U.S. government as far back as 2001 and, in some cases, earlier.

Despite long-standing U.S. policy, and in defiance of the legal requirements of the Taiwan Relations Act, however, the Bush Administration has blocked the completion of the sale in what many believe is yet another attempt by the White House to curry favor with the communist government of mainland China.

“We have a moral obligation to make good on our commitment to our democratic friends in Taiwan,” said Tancredo. “Congress and the Administration have a legal obligation under the Taiwan Relations Act to provide Taiwan with these weapons systems, regardless of what the communists in Beijing or the ‘panda-huggers’ in the U.S. State Department might think.”

Tancredo pointed to the text of Taiwan Relations Act which stipulates that, “the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability,” and that “The President and Congress shall determine the nature and quantity of such defense articles and services based solely upon their judgment of the needs of Taiwan” (emphasis added).

The Bush Administration has flip-flopped on the issue of supporting democratic Taiwan since taking office eight years ago. In 2001, President Bush declared that the U.S. would “do whatever it takes” to defend Taiwan, and approved a robust transfer of defensive weapons to aid the island nation in beefing up its defenses against its rapidly militarizing and increasingly belligerent communist neighbor.

Since then, however, the Bush State Department has taken great pains to accommodate and appease China, refusing to accept Taiwan’s request for replacement aircraft in 2006, 2007 and 2008 and freezing portions of the 2001 arms transfer by withholding a routine “notification” to Congress that is necessary for the completion of the sale.

“The Taiwan Relations Act entrusts both the President and Congress with the task of helping Taiwan defend itself from a hostile China,” concluded Tancredo. “Unfortunately because the President has made it clear that he isn’t interested in living up to that responsibility – Congress is going to have to take the initiative.”

Tancredo’s bill would waive the requirement for a “Presidential notification,” and allow the unfulfilled elements of the 2001 sale, as well as the F-16 fighters the Taiwan government requested two years ago, to go forward.


[Taiwan]

Tancredo to Rice: Stop Interfering in Taiwan's Elections

Tom Tancredo's (R-COL) office just forwarded me a copy of his latest effort on Taiwan's behalf: a joint letter of Tancredo and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) to Sec of State Rice asking the Administration to stop its interference in Taiwan's elections. Go Tancredo! Here's the letter in its entirety:

++++++++++++

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Rice,

We are writing to ask that the State Department cease its repeated efforts to affect the outcome of the upcoming elections in Taiwan, and specifically, the outcome of the planned referendum on membership in the United Nations. Your department has already made its objections to the referendum quite clear, and we are concerned that continued public criticism of the measure by U.S. officials will only contribute to the perception that the U.S. is playing political favorites in Taiwan.

Administration condemnations of the referendum have been numerous and public. In June, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack publicly urged people to reject the proposed U.N referendum. In August, John Negroponte arranged to appear on a Chinese television station to express U.S. opposition to the plebiscite, dangerously mischaracterizing it as “a step toward a declaration of independence.” A few days later, a National Security Council spokesman also blasted the referendum. Our AIT director in Taipei, Stephen Young has repeatedly criticized the proposal. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian affairs suggested that the “DPP referendum” is “inconsistent with President Chen’s inaugural pledges” (disregarding the fact that President Chen’s pledges were contingent on China not threatening to use force against the island). And just a few days ago, Raymond Burghardt publicly panned the upcoming vote as an obstacle to “develop[ing] relations across the Taiwan Strait.”

One or two public statements would be quite sufficient to convey the Administrations position to Taiwan’s elected officials on this matter. It is not necessary to continue dispatching an endless parade of U.S. officials to denounce and attack the proposal over a six month stretch while parroting the terminology used by the Chinese Foreign Ministry. Doing so is not just unseemly, it is totally unnecessary. Given the vibrant debate on the issue inside Taiwan and the widely varying opinions on the wisdom and efficacy of the referendum among Taiwan’s numerous political parties, the Department’s sustained interference will do little more than contribute to what has already become a troubling – and unfortunately quite understandable – perception in Taiwan that the U.S. government is choosing sides in their elections.

We hope the Administration will refrain from orchestrating any further interference in the referendum question and will instead allow Taiwan’s political leaders, political parties and people to make this decision on their own. The people of Taiwan have earned the right to conduct their elections without coercion from our government, the government of the People’s Republic of China, or anyone else – and we should respect their right to do so.

Sincerely,

Tom Tancredo, M.C.
Dana Rohrabacher, M.C.

++++++++++++

"One or two public statements would be quite sufficient to convey the Administrations position to Taiwan’s elected officials on this matter. It is not necessary to continue dispatching an endless parade of U.S. officials to denounce and attack the proposal over a six month stretch while parroting the terminology used by the Chinese Foreign Ministry."

Yup. Good stuff, gentlemen.

[Taiwan]

Tancredo Blasts State

Kudos to Congressman Tom Tancredo, who launched a blast at the State Department for its hypocrisy and overreaction:

+++++++++++++++++

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:

Dear Secretary Rice,

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.

To refresh your memory, President Chen’s exact words were:

"[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 look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Tom Tancredo, M.C.

+++++++++++++++++

This is what we need -- Congress to exercise some oversight of State. Excellent, points, many of which have been made right here on this blog. My thanks, and the thanks of all who care about our island, go out to Congressman Tancredo.

[Taiwan] [China] [US]

Tancredo Letter on Olympics

Tom Tancredo, the conservative Republican from Colorado, sent this around:

+++++++++++++++

Tancredo Asks Olympic Committee to Play Fair, Stop Discriminating Against Taiwan

Lawmaker Introduces Resolution Urging IOC to Let Taiwan Compete Using the National Name, Flag and Anthem of Its Own Choosing in 2008 Beijing Games

( WASHINGTON , D.C. ) – U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) introduced legislation today urged the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to stop discriminating against Taiwan, and asked the international sports body to allow the island nation to compete in the 2008 Beijing Games using the national name, flag, and national anthem of its choice.

“It’s disappointing that the IOC seems to be more interested in acting as a foreign policy handmaiden for Beijing that it does in promoting sportsmanship and fair play,” said Tancredo.

The Olympic Charter states that “Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on the grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.” In addition, it directs the IOC to “oppose any political or commercial abuse of sport and athletes.”

Despite the lofty language of the charter, however, the IOC – under pressure from the People’s Republic of China – continues to require Taiwan to compete under the name “Chinese Taipei.” In addition, the IOC does not permit the playing of Taiwan ’s national anthem, or the display of Taiwan ’s national flag.

Tancredo also pointed out that Puerto Rico, whose status as a U.S. commonwealth is not in dispute, is not required to use a special flag or compete under the name “American San Juan” as a condition for participation.

"Taiwan's athletes, like athletes from every other participating country, have exhibited years of hard work and training to earn the right to represent their country in the Olympic Games,” concluded Tancredo, “Why shouldn’t they enjoy the same opportunity to stand beneath their national flag while their national anthem is played when they win a medal?”

The legislation is cosponsored by Representatives Steve Chabot (R-OH), Dan Burton (R-IN) and Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI)

+++++++++++++++

Emphasis on Puerto Rico is mine. The difference is that while Puerto Rico is indisputably a part of the US, Taiwan is not a part of China at all.

[Taiwan] [Olympics]

Tancredo Introduces Bill Calling for Congressional Approval of AIT Director

Tom Tancredo's office sent around notice that he has introduced a bill calling for Congress to oversee the appointment of the AIT director:

+++++++++++++++

Tancredo Seeks to Put Top U.S. Envoy to Taiwan on Par With Other Ambassadors
Bill Would Require Senate Confirmation of American Institute in Taiwan Director


( WASHINGTON , D.C. ) – U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) today introduced legislation that would require Senate confirmation of the top U.S. envoy to Taiwan . The bill would require future Directors of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) to be appointed with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. Unlike the heads of other U.S. missions abroad, the AIT Director is not confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

“Given the strategic importance of the U.S.-Taiwan relationship and U.S. obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act, Congress ought to play a role in deciding who represents U.S. interests in Taiwan ,” said Tancredo.

If the bill is enacted, future AIT Directors would undergo the same rigorous confirmation process as other U.S. Ambassadors to foreign nations.

“The Taiwan Strait is a dangerous place,” said Tancredo, “So why are we applying more Congressional scrutiny to who heads up our embassy in a tourist destination like Barbados than we do to who is heading our mission in Taiwan?”

Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) joined Tancredo in introducing the bill.

+++++++++

Hmmm....out of deference to Tancredo for his support of Taiwan, no sarcastic remark shall escape my lips. I will only say that I dream of the day when Congress actually exercises its oversight powers on the Chief Executive and his foreign policy.

[Taiwan]

Tancredo Lambastes the State Department

The redoubtable Coen Blaaw at FAPA passed this around. Enjoy some snark by a Congressman at the State Department's expense.

+++++++++++

February 20, 2007

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Rice,

I was somewhat confused by a recent statement issued by the department criticizing President Chen's "name rectification" efforts in Taiwan. The written statement distributed by the department expressed concern that changing the name of a few businesses in Taiwan will "change Taiwan's status unilaterally or move [Taiwan] toward independence."

First, it is rather difficult to understand how a decision about what the name of a local business might be in Taiwan is any of the State Department's concern. It seems to me that Taiwan's elected leaders and investors are perfectly capable of determining what the name of a particular shipbuilding company ought to be.

Second, for the State Department to equate the renaming of a gas station with a change Taiwan's international status is, to say the least, rather puzzling. While there are many important factors to be concerned with when it comes to cross-strait relations, I am not sure the name of Taiwan's national airline or post office are among them. After all, "Taiwan Beer" has been brewed and sold on the island for quite some time and I am not aware of the beer label triggering any sort of geopolitical crisis.

We often hear that the State Department is concerned about unilateral actions by either China or Taiwan that might change the "status quo." In practice, however, the department seems more than willing to criticize Taiwan's leaders (often for quite trivial things), yet very reluctant to rebuke the leadership in Beijing.

For example, compare the State Department's reaction to Taiwan's name rectification effort to that of China's adoption of the so-called "anti-secession law" in 2005. The "anti-secession law" by Beijing's own admission was intended to create a legal framework for China to initiate military action against Taiwan. The "law" represents a clear-cut, belligerent and dangerous step toward a military attack of Taiwan.

Clearly, this act represented a change in the "status quo" yet the strongest and most direct rebuke to China that State Department spokesman Richard Boucher could muster 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 "unhelpful."

But perhaps I am being too critical.

Maybe the State Department is simply waiting for China to do something extremely "provocative" like renaming their airlines or gas stations before issuing a similarly stern warning to Beijing.

Sincerely,

Tom Tancredo

Member of Congress

+++++++++++++

LOL. Great work, making clear the State Department's pro-Beijing bias. Sad.


[Taiwan] [US] [China] [State Department]

Tancredo introduces legislation to normalize relations with Taiwan

Tom Tancredo's office passed around the following notice. It won't get anywhere, but little by little we chip away.....

+++++++++

Tancredo leads bipartisan effort to forge Official ties between U.S. and Taiwan

Measure Aims to Junk Antiquated “One China Policy,” Formalize Diplomatic Relations with Taipei

U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton) today introduced legislation that would call for the United States to resume normal diplomatic relations with Taiwan . The U.S. cut ties with Taiwan in 1979 when former U.S. President Jimmy Carter shifted recognition from the island nation to communist China . Carter made the decision without consulting or seeking the approval of Congress.

"Our current ‘One China’ policy is a fiction – a relic of time that has long since passed,” said Tancredo, “It’s time for the United States to stop living this lie and to formally recognize Taiwan for what it is: An independent and sovereign country.”

Since the U.S. cut diplomatic ties with Taiwan in 1979, the nation has developed into a regional economic powerhouse and a flourishing, pluralistic, multi-party democracy and has remained a reliable and steadfast ally of the United States .

“The reality is that China and Taiwan are two separate and independent political entities – this is an indisputable fact that no one can deny,” said Tancredo, “ Taiwan has never been under the control of the Chinese government in Beijing – not even for one minute.”

“There is no good reason the United States cannot maintain the same kind of normal relationship with the democratically elected government in Taiwan that it maintains with the autocratic regime on the mainland,” Tancredo continued, “There is ‘One China’ – but there is also ‘One Taiwan,’ and we should adopt an intellectually honest policy that reflects this fact.”

In addition to calling for a resumption of diplomatic ties between the two countries, the measure would also direct the U.S. Representative to the United Nations to support Taiwan ’s efforts to re-join the international organization.

U.S. Representatives Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Mark Souder (R-IN), Dan Burton (R-IN), Steve Chabot (R-OH) and Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) joined Tancredo in introducing the bipartisan legislation.

[Taiwan]