Text: Kerry Says U.S. Not Obligated to Defend Taiwan from Attacks
(Sen. Kerry's speech on President Bush's remarks)"The Taiwan Relations Act does not commit the United States to come to the defense of Taiwan in the event of an attack," Senator John Kerry (Democrat of Massachusetts) said in an April 25 speech to the Senate.
Kerry, the highest-ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, was responding to a television interview President Bush gave earlier that day in which the president reportedly said the United States has an obligation to defend Taiwan if it were attacked.
President Bush made "a far-reaching comment this morning on the American defense of Taiwan, a comment which suggests that without any consultation with Congress, without any prior notice to the Congress, a policy that has been in place for 30 years is now summarily being changed with implications that I believe are serious," he said.
For nearly 30 years, Kerry said, U.S. policy has been "there is but one China; Taiwan is a part of China, and the question of Taiwan's future must be settled peacefully."
The United States has never stated what it would do "if Beijing attempted to use force to reunify Taiwan with the mainland -- until today," he said.
The United States has been deliberately vague about the circumstances under which it would come to Taiwan's defense, and that strategic ambiguity should be maintained, Kerry said.
Removing strategic ambiguity "runs the risk of decreasing Taiwan's security rather than increasing it and of eliminating the flexibility that we will need to determine how to respond in any given situation," he continued.
Kerry said that the Taiwan Relations Act "commits us to provide Taiwan with the necessary military equipment to meet its legitimate self-defense needs."
The Massachusetts Democrat said he supports the arms package that the Bush administration approved for Taiwan, adding that it "will significantly increase the Taiwanese defensive capacities."
Following is the text of Senator Kerry's April 25 speech from the Congressional Record:
(begin text)
TAIWAN
Senate
April 25, 2001Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I want to say a word about what President Bush said this morning with respect to Taiwan because if what the President said is, in fact, what he means, or if it is indeed the new policy of the United States, it has profound implications for our country. He made a far-reaching comment this morning on the American defense of Taiwan, a comment which suggests that without any consultation with Congress, without any prior notice to the Congress, a policy that has been in place for 30 years is now summarily being changed with implications that I believe are serious.
When asked by Charles Gibson, on ABC's "Good Morning America," whether the United States had an obligation to defend Taiwan if Taiwan were attacked by China, President Bush said:
Yes, we do, and the Chinese must understand that.
Charles Gibson then asked:
With the full force of the American military?
President Bush responded:
Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself.
For almost 30 years, through Republican and Democrat administrations alike, the cornerstone of our approach to policy toward China and Taiwan has been the so-called "one China" policy: There is but one China; Taiwan is a part of China, and the question of Taiwan's future must be settled peacefully.
This policy was laid out in the 1972 Shanghai Communique issued by the United States and China at the end of President Nixon's historic visit. It was reaffirmed in subsequent bilateral communiques--in 1979, when the United States recognized the People's Republic of China and again in 1982 on the question of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan.
A consistent tenet of this policy is the U.S. expectation that the question of reunification of China and Taiwan will be settled peacefully. We have never stated what the United States would do if Beijing attempted to use force to reunify Taiwan with the mainland--until today. We have not stated it in the course of Republican and Democrat administrations alike because we understood the danger of doing so.
We have been deliberately vague about what the circumstances might be under which we would come to Taiwan's defense, not only to discourage Taiwan from drawing us in by declaring independence but also to deter a Chinese attack by keeping Beijing guessing as to what the response might be.
Sometimes some people have talked about trying to reduce that ambiguity and simplify it and simply say, of course we would come to their defense. But if you do that, you invite a set of consequences that might carry with it its own set of dangers, and you may lose control of the capacity to make a determination about what has happened and what the circumstances really are to which you need to respond.
President Bush's comments this morning on ``Good Morning America'' suggest that the administration has decided to abandon the so-called strategic ambiguity. If so, the President has made a major policy change with absolutely no consultation with the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee, the Intelligence Committee, or the leadership of the Congress.
In my view, it is a policy change that serves neither our interests nor Taiwan's. Any situation which results in the use of force across the Taiwan Strait is unlikely to be simply black and white, as clear as can be. The Tonkin Gulf is a classic example of that.
To this day, people debate over whether or not there really was an attack on the Maddox and the Turner Joy, and whether or not there was an appropriate response under those circumstances.
The scenarios which could lead to the use of force and the conditions under which the United States might respond are simply too variable to lend themselves to a simple, clear declaration such as the declaration made by the President this morning.
For example, if China attacked in response to what it sees as a Taiwanese provocation, would we then respond? Apparently so, according to President Bush. Or if Taiwan declared independence, and China responded militarily, would we then come to Taiwan's defense? Have we given Taiwan a card it wanted all along, which is the capacity to know that no matter what it does, the United States would, in fact, be there to defend it?
The answer to that question is the reason that we have carried this ambiguity through President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, President Bush, the President's father, and President Clinton.
In a subsequent interview on CNN, the President reiterated that we maintain the "one China" policy, and he hopes Taiwan will not declare independence. But he remained vague as to what we would do if Taiwan did declare independence and China attacked.
To remove the strategic ambiguity runs the risk of decreasing Taiwan's security rather than increasing it and of eliminating the flexibility that we will need to determine how to respond in any given situation.
Notwithstanding President Bush's efforts to clarify that the United States does not want Taiwan to declare independence, the new policy has the automatic impact, if it is in place, and if it is the declaration that was made, of emboldening Taiwan and, frankly, reducing our control over events.
Although I have argued that we need to inject more clarity into our engagement with China, I personally believe that on this question our interests and Taiwan's are better served by the ambiguity that has existed and would be better served by maintaining it. It not only deters a Chinese attack, but it discourages Taiwan from misreading what the United States might do.
President Bush has said that the United States has an obligation to defend Taiwan. Certainly we want to help Taiwan preserve its thriving democracy and robust, growing economy. I have said previously that I think this is enough of a message to the Chinese, that no American President could stand idly by and watch while that democracy that has been gained is set back, by force or otherwise. Nevertheless, we need to press both Taipei and Beijing to reinvigorate the cross-strait dialogue, without any misinterpretations about our role.
So let us be clear: The Taiwan Relations Act does not commit the United States to come to the defense of Taiwan in the event of an attack. The Taiwan Relations Act commits us to provide Taiwan with the necessary military equipment to meet its legitimate self-defense needs. The arms package that the Bush administration just approved for Taiwan, I believe, is the right mix and the right measure, and it will significantly increase the Taiwanese defensive capacities. I support that package.
It may be the case that we would send American forces ultimately to Taiwan's defense if there were an attack, but that decision should not be made by an American President in advance during a television interview.
A decision of this magnitude, which holds the potential for risking the lives of American military men and women, should be made in response to the circumstances at the moment, on the ground, in the air, and, most importantly, in consultation with the Congress of the United States in the due performance of its responsibilities with respect to the engagement of our forces overseas. (end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
Return to The United States and China.Return to IIP Home Page.