In 1997, after winning his sixth, six-year Senate term the year before, he became the ranking Democrat in the Foreign Relations Committee.
A member of the committee since 1975, he made a name as a strong arms-control advocate and Europe specialist.
His arms-control stance helps explain some of his main positions affecting Taiwan, where he has been a vociferous opponent of Bush's missile defense plan -- including any extension of a missile shield to Taiwan -- and has strongly opposed what he would consider an overly-firm commitment to Taiwan defense issues.
He was the leading opponent, for instance, of Helms' advocacy of a Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, which would expand military-to-military relations between Washington and Taipei, including secure high-level communications links, and would, under the Helms version, mandate the sale to Taiwan of a number of arms systems which Washington has refused to supply.
He is also opposed to the sale to Taiwan of AEGIS-equipped Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and other military items that he feels could spur cross-strait tensions. As his comments on Bush's TV statement on Taiwan indicate, he is also in favor of a narrow reading of the Taiwan Relations Act, which forms the basis of the US' commitment to arm Taiwan defensively and support Taiwan against a mainland attack.
Committed to taiwan
Nevertheless, he is committed to the security and freedom of Taiwan, and, as such, is in the mainstream of American political backing of Taiwan's position.
Noting that he was among the handful of extant Senators who voted for the Taiwan Relations Act, he told the Senate in April, "I remain as committed today as I was then to the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question."
And, in a 1999 debate over the Taiwan security act, he noted that "China should have no doubt that our commitment [to Taiwan's security] remains firm."
That security, he said, "flows from its democratic form of government, its growing economic, cultural and political contacts with the mainland, and ultimately, the United States' abiding commitment to a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question."
Therefore, he said, "we should concentrate on strengthening those areas rather than spend time preauthorizing the sale of weapon systems, some of which don't even exist yet."
Nevertheless, his remarks after Bush's "whatever it took" statement raises questions about how far he would be willing to go to support Taiwan militarily if push comes to shove.
"Contrary to the president's statement the United States is not obligated to defend Taiwan, `with the full force of the American military,' and hasn't been since we abrogated the 1954 Mutual Defense Treaty signed by president Eisen-hower and ratified by the US Senate.
"And contrary to the White House spokesman's comments, the president does not have the authority unilaterally to commit US forces to the defense of Taiwan. Under the Constitution, as well as the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act, that is a matter which the president must bring to the American people and to the Congress of the United States."
He added that he supports a policy that would "retain the right to use force to defend Taiwan, while reserving to the United States all the decision-making authority about the circumstances in which we might, or might not, commit US forces."
RSS