UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

USIS Washington File

16 March 2000

Text: House Majority Whip DeLay Speech on U.S. Foreign Policy

(Urges tough policy toward Beijing/support for Taiwan) (4830)
Representative Tom DeLay (Republican of Texas) criticized current U.S.
policy toward China in a March 16 speech Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS).
Instead of following in the footsteps of British wartime Prime
Minister Winston Churchill and U.S. Presidents John Kennedy and Ronald
Reagan who waged a crusade for freedom, the current U.S.
administration seems more concerned that it not offend China, the
leading Republican lawmaker said in a speech entitled "Returning to a
Principled Foreign Policy," in which he asked his audience of foreign
policy experts to imagine an Asia that was completely democratic.
"America today," he lamented, "has no coherent foreign policy. We
seem, more than ever, to be without a direction or a purpose, without
a course or a mission."
DeLay is the House Majority Whip, the third highest ranking Republican
in the House of Representatives. While critical of U.S. policy toward
China, and that nation's rulers, DeLay said he would support permanent
Normal Trade Relations status for China.
"How we handle the emerging empire ruled from Beijing is the leading
national security issue of our time," DeLay told his CSIS audience.
For the past decade, the Texas Republican said, "China has been
engaged in a massive build-up of modern nuclear and conventional
forces. Their aim," he claimed, "gaining unmatched military power in
the region."
DeLay cited a Hong Kong newspaper's quote from China's Minister of
Defense, "'We cannot avoid [war]. The issue is that the Chinese armed
forces must control the initiative in this war.... We must be prepared
to fight for one year, two years, three years or even longer.'"
China's territory, Delay stressed, "is not truly threatened, the
Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, has formidable enemies,
beginning with the Chinese people themselves."
For fifty years, he said, "the Communist Party has denied the Chinese
people the basic elements of democracy and human rights: a free
ballot; honest judges and the rule of law; freedom in belief, thought,
speech and the press."
China's military modernization, he said, is backed by "an increasingly
sophisticated espionage and political influence effort aimed at the
United States and its allies."
America, he said, "must make clear that threats to a free, democratic
people will be met with the force required to deter and, if necessary,
confront aggression."
The United States, DeLay emphasized, cannot "under any circumstances
allow the People's Republic of China to impose a communist future on
Taiwan."
DeLay criticized what he termed "our government's growing reluctance
to speak the truth for fear of placing our values in conflict with the
values of communist China."
Clearly, he said, "we have lost our way at a moment in history when
the stakes are incredibly high.
"Imagine, for a moment, what democracy across Asia would mean," DeLay
told his audience.
"The nuclear threat would be considerably reduced; terrorist nations
would have to look elsewhere for their supplies of missiles,
biological weapons, and the like; no one on China's borders would feel
threatened; Tibetans could begin to rebuild their ancient culture in
peace and harmony; the Burmese military junta and the North Korean
communist regime would collapse; and of course, the Chinese people
would join us in freedom," he said.
The fall of the Berlin Wall, DeLay said, freed "500 million people
from the Soviet system, three times that many, a billion-and-a-half,
remain the captives of communist parties."
Beijing, he said, is the hub of an "empire (that) gathers strength
daily."
China's Communist Party, DeLay said, "rules the people of the mainland
with the authority of the bayonet, not the ballot box."
Tibet, he charged, "is a nation under military occupation, no more, no
less."
Beijing, Delay said, sustains "military rulers in Burma and North
Korea to keep democracy away from its own borders."
Counterpoised to this "empire," DeLay said, "is a great arc of mostly
democracies, anchored by Tokyo, Seoul and Taipei in the East and New
Delhi in the West."
If the people of mainland China, DeLay said, "could freely choose
their leaders, the way Taiwan does, there would be no issue at all."
The Texas Republican scored China's record of religious persecution,
but added that communist governments have "always viewed religious
faith as a threat."
"Looking at it from afar, it is hard for us to imagine how a
60-year-old woman doing breathing exercises in the park could be a
threat to the all-powerful communist state. But, that is certainly the
way Beijing sees it," DeLay said.
Beijing's rulers, he said, "know the role that the Catholic Church in
Poland played in the ultimate end of the Soviet system. A rise in
individual worship led to demands for freedom in the workplace and
ultimately pressure for a democratic state."
Taiwan, he said, "is a democratic and capitalist nation that shares
many of our beliefs and priorities. Within 48 hours the people of
Taiwan will begin the process of voting for a new President."
DeLay pointed to how this "demonstration of genuine democracy has
thrown Beijing into something akin to panic. Threats of invasion seem
to pour out of Communist Party Headquarters daily," he said.
In the face of this belligerence, DeLay said, the Clinton
Administration "has treated Taiwan with a thinly veiled disdain once
reserved for states on the edge of the community of civilized
nations."
The Taiwanese, he said, "who have nurtured liberty in the shadow of
tyranny have been all but abandoned by a democratic superpower of
unrivaled strength."
Just as American presidents during the Cold War aligned the United
States with "those fighting for freedom against communism, we should
now support those who fight for democracy and human rights against
post-Soviet tyrants," DeLay said.
Following is the text of DeLay's remarks, as prepared for delivery:
(begin text)
Returning to a Principled Foreign Policy
The Honorable Tom DeLay (R-TX)
House Majority Whip
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Washington, DC
Thursday, March 16, 2000
America today has no coherent foreign policy. We seem, more than ever,
to be without a direction or a purpose, without a course or a mission.
Many of us in this room, and many of our fellow citizens, sense this
wandering. And we are compelled to ask if our aimlessness stems from
an absence of global challenges, or an absence of courageous
leadership. Are we exercising the patience of a confident world power,
or is our passive posture simply the drift that occurs when those
steering the ship of state are uncertain about the destination?
I believe that the world cries out for courageous leadership; that
America's failure to act decisively reflects the indecision not of the
American people, but of those entrusted with wielding the arsenal of
democracy. And I believe this confusion has much more to do with a
conflict of values at home than it does with any conflict of interests
abroad.
At the beginning of this year, I appeared before another distinguished
public policy institute to talk about the future of our nation. During
that address, I asserted the following:
The rediscovery of our core American values represents the central
challenge confronting our nation at the dawn of a new century and a
new millennium. These values are the timeless ideals of faith in God,
the sanctity of human life, the existence of moral absolutes, and the
certainty of ultimate accountability. And these convictions are the
sole source of America's greatness.
For our country to be prosperous and deserving of prosperity, these
principles must guide our individual actions.
They have to shape the character of our communities. And, yes, they
have to inform a principled foreign policy designed to protect our
nation's vital interests through the triumph of democracy around the
globe.
Unfortunately, over the past few years we've lost our way.
Moral authority at the top has evaporated. Our military strength has
declined rapidly: lost army divisions, lost air wings, lost carrier
battle groups. Instead of a principled approach to national security,
we now serve up an inedible foreign policy stew of appeasement and
social work.
Political power without moral principle is incomplete. We are now
experiencing the disturbing results of separating our nation's
policies from our nation's guiding ideals. This represents a radical
departure from the best traditions of U.S. foreign policy. And in the
same way that America's domestic politics require the "rediscovery of
values" I have described, we must reconstruct our means of
international relations according to our system of beliefs. And these
are the beliefs that made us a good people before we were a great
power.
Today, I will suggest a broad foreign policy model designed to achieve
our objectives by once again enlisting America's founding principles.
I won't attempt to solve every crisis and answer every question, and
as a result, some critical topics will go unmentioned.
It's my intention only to provide a framework for action and, in doing
so, reference a few of the most prominent international challenges
confronting the American people.
But before we move to current events, let's begin exploring the roots
of America's value-based foreign policy by returning to the fall of
1938.
Operating under the guise of ethnic reunion, Adolph Hitler threatened
the military conquest of Czechoslovakia, a small peaceful, democratic
state. The major democratic powers, which could have mounted an
effective resistance, did not. These states argued that they had only
"interests," not principles. "Appeasement," as this policy was known,
means submission to the demands of another, whether the demands are
valid or not.
The obvious lesson of this tragic mistake teaches that we should never
reward aggression. Another lesson is this: You betray your own
principles at your own peril.
Britain and France abandoned their own fundamental values in a
misguided effort to avoid conflict with Hitler's twisted ideology. As
a result, an entire continent came to ruin.
Seared by the experience of World War II, Winston Churchill, as well
as Presidents John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, sought to remind each
succeeding generation that respect for core values is critical to
national security.
The first leader identified those fundamental values; the second
pledged unwavering support for them; and the third asserted their
universal nature.
Addressing an American audience in 1946, Churchill called democracy
and human rights "the title deeds of freedom." Fifteen years later
President Kennedy warned "friend and foe alike" that the United States
is "unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human
rights to which this nation has always been committed." In 1982
President Reagan announced a deliberate policy to foster democracy
abroad, a program that led directly to the fall of the Berlin Wall and
the demise of Soviet tyranny.
And in this soil, fertile with the resolve and wisdom of these
intrepid leaders, democracy has taken root among peoples with very
different cultures and experiences. Of course, representative
government is practiced a little differently in Poland than it is in
Japan. But the fundamentals are the same: Free press. Free speech.
Free and fair elections. Rule of law. The right to petition the
government. And ultimately, the right to change the government by
peaceful means.
From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, the old
capitals of Central and Eastern Europe are indeed free of the Soviet
system. That does not mean, however, that tyranny has been totally
vanquished from this world.
The reality is that the world remains divided, the democratic alliance
on one side and the tyrannies on the other.
In some cases, the democratic alliance is formalized by agreement.
NATO and the US-Japan Mutual Defense Agreement are of this type. In
others, the alliance is de facto, such as the relationship between the
United States and Israel. As a practical matter, simply being a
genuine democracy qualifies a country as a member of this alliance.
Such support for democracy and human rights around the globe
corresponds to our fundamental values. But is it also in our
interests? The answer, in my view, is an emphatic, "Yes."
If we have learned anything from the experience of the past 100 years,
it is that modern democratic states do not launch wars of
international aggression. Peace and democracy are linked. Governments
that must answer to the people also do not inflict heinous crimes
against their own citizens. Streams of suffering refugees leave
state-sponsored terror behind; they do not march into the arms of
their oppressors.
Recognizing our core values and applying the hard lessons of recent
history, the past principles of American foreign policy should be the
foundation for a new approach for a new century:
Just as the presidents of the Cold War in different ways aligned the
United States with those fighting for freedom against communism, we
should now support those who fight for democracy and human rights
against post-Soviet tyrants.
To be effective, this approach must be accompanied by a renewed
American military and restored international alliances.
With this foreign policy, a foreign policy built on our core values
and reinforced by powerful armed forces and international friendships,
America will be able to assess individual conflicts and crises in the
context of an overall strategic goal. This is the essence of peace
through strength. It is a philosophy that we must, once again, place
at the center of American diplomacy.
Of course, we have to judge carefully each particular instance of
potential U.S. action against a strict set of criteria that measures
the appropriateness and utility of such involvement. Specifically, I
believe we should ask these fundamental questions:
Does this operation conform to our democratic and human rights values?
Is there an identifiable aggressor? What is the outcome we desire?
What action is necessary to meet our objectives? Are we willing to
take this action? Is there an American interest at stake?
Using this decision making model, I would like to address two current
foreign policy questions. For different reasons, these two situations
may have the greatest impact on our nation's role in the world over
the next decade. The first is the ongoing conflict in the Balkans, and
the second is the growing crisis across the Taiwan Straits.
The Clinton Administration's policy in Kosovo is not only unwise, but
it is also dangerous.
Neither the Kosovo Liberation Army nor the Serbs share America's
respect for human life or individual freedom. In fact, the Kosovo
Liberation Army embraces the ideals and accepts the assistance of
movements and states that are opposed to many of our most cherished
values. It is very doubtful we could accomplish any long-term
objectives where there is no righteous party to support.
In short, the United States should not become a party to mindless
communal strife where ethnic hatred is shared by both sides. The
President has never properly explained to the American people the
vital national interests at stake. The outcome he desires is muddled
at best.
And most noteworthy, even President Clinton, the most vocal advocate
of our involvement, is unwilling to take the kind of action required
to alter the situation in any meaningful way.
The result is a foreign policy that does not reflect our values, and
for this reason, it is a foreign policy that doesn't serve our
interests.
If you doubt that our Kosovo policy follows no coherent doctrine,
consider for a moment the manner in which those responsible for our
Balkans policy are dealing with communist China and democratic Taiwan.
I believe how we handle the emerging empire ruled from Beijing is the
leading national security issue of our time.
If the fall of the Berlin Wall freed 500 million people from the
Soviet system, three times that many, a billion-and-a-half, remain the
captives of communist parties.
Inside a line from Lhasa in the Himalayas, down to Rangoon on the
Andaman Sea, and up to Pyongyang on Korea Bay, another empire gathers
strength daily. At the center, the Communist Party rules the people of
the mainland with the authority of the bayonet, not the ballot box.
Tibet is a nation under military occupation, no more, no less. It
suits Beijing's pleasure to sustain military rulers in Burma and North
Korea to keep democracy away from its own borders. Facing this empire
is a great arc of mostly democracies, anchored by Tokyo, Seoul and
Taipei in the East and New Delhi in the West.
If the Chinese people on the mainland could freely choose their
leaders, the way Taiwan does, there would be no issue at all. But the
fact of Communist Party rule changes the equation completely. We
should never forget that, at Tiananmen Square, Chinese patriots paid
with their blood for simply seeking liberty.
Even today more Chinese patriots are disappearing into the labor camp
system. Their crimes? Attempting to register a democratic party and
protesting against corrupt Party officials.
According to the latest State Department report on human rights,
"almost all the key leaders of the China Democratic Party were serving
long prison terms."
Nowhere is the current crackdown more obvious than on the question of
religious believers. An 80 year-old Catholic bishop has been jailed
yet again. And Christian congregations meeting in house churches are
raided and their pastors thrown into prison.
Looking at it from afar, it is hard for us to imagine how a
60-year-old woman doing breathing exercises in the park could be a
threat to the all-powerful communist state. But, that is certainly the
way Beijing sees it, because communist oppressors have always viewed
religious faith as a threat. And in a sense, they are right.
Certainly, they know the role that the Catholic Church in Poland
played in the ultimate end of the Soviet system. A rise in individual
worship led to demands for freedom in the workplace and ultimately
pressure for a democratic state.
In order to counter this perceived threat to its power, Beijing has
developed and implemented a two-part plan of attack: merciless
repression against domestic opponents; and a conscious exaggeration of
threats abroad to distract the people's attention from misrule at
home.
It is the second part of their program that poses such a threat to
everyone in Asia and, possibly, to us.
For the foreseeable future, the People's Republic of China faces no
external threats that an adequate border patrol and coast guard could
not handle. Who would attack China? Nobody.
And yet, for the past decade China has been engaged in a massive
build-up of modern nuclear and conventional forces. Their aim: gaining
unmatched military power in the region.
A short survey of the PRC military build-up must include the
following:
Mass production and development of ballistic and cruise missiles,
including two nuclear strike missiles, the DF-31 and the DF-41;
Delivery last month of the first of a series of nuclear-capable
surface ships from Russia; Agreement to purchase billions of dollars
in modern strike aircraft from Russia; and Development of a
world-class cyber-warfare capability.
These are all offensive weapons designed to strike targets in Asia or
the United States.
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Australia, Singapore
India, even parts of California and the West, are already within
range.
The new naval vessels were designed for one purpose and one purpose
only: To kill American sailors and marines aboard our aircraft
carriers and Aegis cruisers. Each of the missiles they carry has a
nuclear explosive power twenty times the size of the Atomic bomb
dropped on Hiroshima.
To make all this new hardware perform as it was intended, the Chinese
have poured billions of dollars into modern command and control
systems. Every year, the PLA's joint-service exercises get a little
bigger and a little better, and the identification of this activity as
a genuine threat is not just a matter of perception.
In fact, a Hong Kong newspaper printed the following quotation from
China's defense minister: "We cannot avoid [war]. The issue is that
the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war....
We must be prepared to fight for one year, two years, three years or
even longer."
And as we all now know, China's military modernization is backed by an
increasingly sophisticated espionage and political influence effort
aimed at the United States and its allies.
While the territory that is China is not truly threatened, the Chinese
Communist Party, on the other hand, has formidable enemies, beginning
with the Chinese people themselves. For fifty years, the Communist
Party has denied the Chinese people the basic elements of democracy
and human rights: a free ballot; honest judges and the rule of law;
freedom in belief, thought, speech and the press.
Now, just offshore are another ethnic Chinese people. They enjoy
precisely those fundamental values that are also the foundation of
American liberty. On Taiwan, officials are elected by the people or
appointed by someone who was so elected. On the mainland, none of the
rulers is there by the choice or consent of the people. As a result,
there can be no question of legitimacy in Taipei, but all of our
issues with Beijing are traceable to this defect.
Taiwan is a democratic and capitalist nation that shares many of our
beliefs and priorities. Within 48 hours the people of Taiwan will
begin the process of voting for a new President. This demonstration of
genuine democracy has thrown Beijing into something akin to panic.
Threats of invasion seem to pour out of Communist Party Headquarters
daily.
Yet, this Administration has treated Taiwan with a thinly veiled
disdain once reserved for states on the edge of the community of
civilized nations. This proud people who have nurtured liberty in the
shadow of tyranny have been all but abandoned by a democratic
superpower of unrivaled strength.
Sixty-two years after Czechoslovakia, ethnic re-union has returned as
an excuse for aggression. Having learned nothing from the folly of
Munich, the Clinton Administration has embraced a level of appeasement
that would have embarrassed Neville Chamberlain: A communist
dictatorship becomes our "strategic partner"; a small, peaceful
democratic country becomes an irritant.
How can an Administration ready to risk American lives to defend a
very elusive - perhaps non-existent - freedom in Kosovo now argue that
Taiwan deserves anything less than our full support? Clearly, we have
lost our way at a moment in history when the stakes are incredibly
high. Imagine, for a moment, what democracy across Asia would mean:
The nuclear threat would be considerably reduced; Terrorist nations
would have to look elsewhere for their supplies of missiles,
biological weapons, and the like; No one on China's borders would feel
threatened; Tibetans could begin to rebuild their ancient culture in
peace and harmony; The Burmese military junta and the North Korean
communist regime would collapse; and of course, The Chinese people
would join us in freedom.
Achieving these goals requires that we consistently act according to
our values, and I would recommend that a new approach to this growing
conflict include the following three specific steps:
First, we must rethink our view of "engagement" and trade as tools for
managing the U.S.-Sino relationship.
Once a process, engagement has been perverted into a comprehensive
policy that is its own objective. And because communist China holds
ultimate power over our ability to interact with them, they alone can
determine the success or failure of engagement. This fact makes
exerting real pressure on a competing nation almost impossible, and
Beijing has wasted no time mastering the art of exploiting our current
view of engagement as an end rather than as a means.
We also must rethink how trade serves our interests. Trade is central
to both our continued economic growth and the success of American
values around the globe. I strongly support expanded trade as a basic
component of American economic freedom. But trade is not a moral
imperative superior to all other considerations. Trade cannot come at
any price to our nation and to our freedom.
At this moment, I believe our trade with Communist China still
provides an overall benefit to our domestic prosperity and the forces
of reform battling the communist government in Beijing. I support and
will vote in favor of Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.
Trade can be a very positive force to help promote our democratic
ideals, and it is in our interests to approve PNTR.
But should the day arrive when our trade with the People's Republic of
China serves more to fuel communist expansion than nurture democracy,
more to support oppression than to export American values, we will be
compelled to subordinate our desire to access markets to the cold,
hard realities of national defense.
We should never be fooled into cheering higher profits while communist
China harnesses that prosperity to construct an arsenal of tyranny.
Second, we must enhance America's military posture in Asia and support
our friends in the area. At this moment, the United States doesn't
have the ability to deal decisively with a regional crisis.
We must provide a short-term solution by moving additional assets to
the theater. And we have to pursue a long-term answer by developing
and deploying a missile defense system with our key allies, including,
at their request, Taiwan.
The Congress, I believe, has a clear vision. We know who shares our
democratic value system, and who is an enemy of democracy. We made
important progress this year when the House of Representatives
overwhelmingly passed that Taiwan Security Enhancement Act. I was
proud to sponsor that legislation, and I believe Congress will
continue to insist that America uphold our obligations under the
Taiwan Relations Act by ensuring that Taiwan has the weapons it needs
to defend itself.
I again urge the President to join our effort.
Third and finally, we must discard old policies that no longer have
credibility because they are no longer true. In my view, whatever
utility the "One China" diplomatic fiction might have had twenty-five
years ago has been erased by the new reality. There are, in fact, two
Chinese states. One, the Republic of China on Taiwan, is free,
democratic and a welcome member of the family of nations. The other,
the People's Republic of China, is not free, not democratic and a
threat to the security of us all.
The people of China and the people of Taiwan will make their own
decisions, and as they do, they will no doubt carefully account for
the views of their friends and their foes. The United States cannot,
however, under any circumstances allow the People's Republic of China
to impose a communist future on Taiwan.
And yes, this means America must make clear that threats to a free,
democratic people will be met with the force required to deter and, if
necessary, confront aggression.
Some observers will no doubt attack my words of support for Taiwan as
reckless. Many of these individuals will insist that the United States
should continue to avoid upsetting communist China at all costs. That
we should continue to subordinate truth to expediency.
Well, we have tried this brand of delicate diplomacy for some time. It
is a failure. And the best evidence of that failure is our
government's growing reluctance to speak the truth for fear of placing
our values in conflict with the values of communist China.
We must replace fear with fearlessness when our basic values are
threatened. Of course, not every situation poses such a direct
challenge to our principles. But on Russia and Africa, on the Middle
East and Latin America, we need to lead with our convictions in all
matters of foreign policy.
What I have described today is the application of a particular
worldview to the realm of foreign policy. It is a worldview that found
greatest political expression in the words and deeds of the men who
launched our democracy. These men understood that America's greatness
is neither our material wealth nor the size of our territory. It is
not to be found in the size of our population or our location on the
map.
Our greatness is the product of what we believe. America's ideals have
always determined America's destiny. The United States is not simply
another nation in another era along the timeline of history. No, we
have a unique burden, a special mission. We are a people with a
purpose, and that purpose is to serve as the sword and shield of the
freedom grounded in eternal values.
Whatever our disagreements over particular policies, I know two things
for certain: first, Americans will always remember that our great
power is built on good beliefs; and second, this allegiance to core
convictions will ensure that American values triumph over every form
of tyranny on this Earth.
For the future of our nation and for the cause of freedom, we must
have a foreign policy worthy of the American people. Let us begin by
rediscovering our values.
Thank you very much.
 (end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State - www.usinfo.state.gov)



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list