Congressional Record publishes “URGING THE EUROPEAN UNION TO MAINTAIN ITS ARMS EMBARGO ON THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA” on Feb. 9, 2005

Congressional Record publishes “URGING THE EUROPEAN UNION TO MAINTAIN ITS ARMS EMBARGO ON THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA” on Feb. 9, 2005

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

Volume 151, No. 13 covering the 1st Session of the 109th Congress (2005 - 2006) was published by the Congressional Record.

The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.

“URGING THE EUROPEAN UNION TO MAINTAIN ITS ARMS EMBARGO ON THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E204-E205 on Feb. 9, 2005.

The publication is reproduced in full below:

URGING THE EUROPEAN UNION TO MAINTAIN ITS ARMS EMBARGO ON THE PEOPLE'S

REPUBLIC OF CHINA

______

speech of

HON. DAN BURTON

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, February 2, 2005

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the Status Quo in the Taiwan Straits is under threat. This has far less to do with unilateral steps being taken by Taiwan and much more to do with People's Republic of China's (PRC) decision to apparently leave its ``Good Neighbor'' policy by the wayside, and embark on a new campaign to promote its economic and military ambitions across the Straits and throughout the region.

For several months now, based on speeches by Jiang Zemin, it appears that China is in the process of drafting a so-called Anti-Secession Law which obligates the People's Liberation Army to use military force to annex Taiwan if Beijing believes Taiwanese rhetoric or actions are moving the Island towards independence.

The prospect of a lifting of the European Union's arms embargo against China, together with the drafting of this Anti-Secession Law, and the publication of a PRC white paper last year entitled, ``China's National Defense in 2004,'' calling Taiwan's independence advocates the

``biggest immediate threat to China's sovereignty and territorial integrity,'' are alarming items in and of themselves, but taken as a whole they represent a disturbing trend in China's thinking about the situation in the Taiwan Straits.

Officials at the State Department and our friends in Taiwan are extremely uneasy to say the least over these signals of a change in China's posture towards Taiwan--and with good reason. Saber rattling by the PRC is nothing new, but this Anti-Secession Law represents a dangerous new dimension.

If enacted, this Anti-Secession Law will create the legal grounds for Beijing to punish anyone speaking or acting against reunification of Taiwan and China. Moreover, the law will permit, in fact it will compel, Chinese leaders to use force against Taiwan if China considers Taiwanese leaders are engaging in so-called separatist activities.

The Law clearly undermines efforts to enhance the goodwill that has grown-up across the Straits in recent years spawned by deep socio-

cultural ties, and the increasing economic interdependence between Taiwan and the Mainland. If this Anti-Secession Law is enacted, the response from the Taiwanese will be predictable; military tension will rise accordingly in the Taiwan Strait and regional peace and stability will be affected. This cannot be in the best interests of any country, especially those in the region.

Mr. Speaker, since 9/11 there has been a heightened recognition of the benefits of cooperation with Beijing on security issues in the region; ranging from eliminating the North Korean nuclear threat, to stabilizing the Taiwan Strait, and countering global terrorism. A security crisis over Taiwan is something we all must work to avert. But, China's proposed Anti-Secession Law is a bad law with serious consequences for future relations between China and Taiwan, as well as regional stability. I hope the Chinese Government will reconsider their actions and return to the ``Good Neighbor'' policy that has worked so effectively for so long.

____________________

SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 151, No. 13

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News