Faleomavaega response No. 2
Once again, Taipei Times has inaccurately reported on the workings of the US Congress and my position regarding Taiwan and Beijing. Most recently, Taipei Times published my rebuttal on March 31 to a guest editorial [sic] printed in its paper on March 25 in which an anonymous author misrepresented my involvement with the TRA [Taiwan Relations Act] legislation. In so doing, Taipei Times added an Editor’s Note which contained information which was either intentionally inaccurate or incorrectly misreported.
To be clear, Taipei Times falsely states that I cannot support my claim that changes I made to the TRA legislation [sic] had the full backing of Committee members. If Taipei Times understood the workings of Congress, it would have understood what I already stated in my previous response — that the changes I made were supported by our Subcommittee members, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the full Committee, as well as the bill’s author, each of whom approved the measure to go forward by unanimous consent.
The bill then moved from the Subcommittee to the full Committee, as this is how the process works in the US Congress. Although the Chairman and Ranking Member of the full Committee had already agreed to the Subcommittee changes, other Members, which is their prerogative in a democracy, asked for the word “cornerstone” to be put back in the legislation to replace the word “vital,” which I had used instead. Upon the advice of the US House of Representatives’ legislative counsel — which argued that the word “vital” (which means “essential,” “critical,” “most important”) was legally stronger than the word “cornerstone” (which means “foundation,” “starting point,” “beginning”) — Republicans and Democrats of the full Committee reached an agreement to make the change back to “cornerstone,” and the bill was then sent directly to the House floor, with no further changes.
Finally, regarding Taipei Times’ assertion that I am confused about the TRA, I would kindly point out that the Taipei Times should review the TRA, as contrary to your assertions, the TRA absolutely implies that the US wants peace — peace between Taipei and Beijing, peace in the Western Pacific and peace for US troops. This is why the TRA plainly states that it is the policy of the United States “to preserve and promote extensive, close, and friendly commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, as well as the people on the China mainland and all other peoples of the Western Pacific area.”
While I have always supported the people on Taiwan, my first priority will always be to prevent as much as possible a gross misuse of US military forces to fight any unnecessary war and, for this reason, I will continue to support the long-standing position of the United States on the issue of Taiwan, which is to support peaceful relations across the Strait and to maintain the One China policy. Every President since 1979 has affirmed this position. And no matter how Taipei Times twists the truth, or contorts the words of Senator Richard Lugar or President Ronald Reagan, the fact remains “that the Taiwan question is a matter for the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to resolve.” Hopefully, the Taipei Times and FAPA [Formosan Association for Public Affairs] will do their part to support peace more than ever in a manner that is respectful of America’s young men and women who do not deserve to be dragged into another war, now or in the future, just because sensible people refuse to get along.
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA
Chairman
US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment
Editor’s note: The Taipei Times respects Congressman Faleomavaega’s opinions, but stands by its reports and editorial comment on this matter.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS