2004 Ron Paul 54:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission
to revise and extend his remarks.)
2004 Ron Paul 54:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by saying that I really do
not have a lot of disagreement with
what the chairman has to say, because
I certainly think we should be friends
with Taiwan. I believe our goals are
very similar. It is just that the approach
I have would be quite different.
2004 Ron Paul 54:3
I happen to believe that we have ignored for too long in this country and
in this body the foreign policy that was
designed by our Founders, a foreign
policy of nonintervention. I think it is
better for us. I think it is healthy in all
ways, both financially and in that it
keeps us out of wars, and we are allowed
to build friendships with all the
nations of the world. The politics of
nonintervention should be given some
serious consideration.
2004 Ron Paul 54:4
Usually, the argument given me for that is that 200 years ago or 250 years
ago things were different. Today we
have had to go through the Cold War
and communism; and, therefore, we are
a powerful Nation and we have an empire
to protect; and we have this moral
obligation to police the world and take
care of everybody.
2004 Ron Paul 54:5
But, Mr. Speaker, my answer to that is somewhat like the notion that we no
longer have to pay attention to the
Ten Commandments or the Bill of
Rights. If principles were correct 200
years ago or 250 years ago, they should
be correct today. So if a policy of
friendship and trade with other nations
and nonintervention were good 250
years ago, it should be good today.
2004 Ron Paul 54:6
I certainly think the Taiwan Relations Act qualifies as an entangling alliance,
and that is what we have been
warned about: Do not get involved in
entangling alliances. It gets us so involved,
we get in too deep, and then we
end up with a military answer to too
many of our problems. I think that is
what has happened certainly in the last
50 years.
2004 Ron Paul 54:7
I essentially have four objections to what we are doing. One is a moral objection.
I will not dwell on the first
three and I will not dwell on this one.
But I do not believe one generation of
Americans has a moral right to obligate
another generation, because, in
many ways, when we make this commitment,
this is not just a friendly
commitment; this is weapons and this
is defense.
2004 Ron Paul 54:8
Most people interpret the Taiwan Relations Act as a commitment for our
troops to go in and protect the Taiwanese
if the Chinese would ever attack.
Although it is not explicit in the
act, many people interpret it that way.
But I do not believe that we or a generation
25 years ago has the moral
right to obligate another generation to
such an overwhelming commitment,
especially if it does not involve an
attack
on our national security. Some
say that if Taiwan would be attacked,
it would be. But, quite frankly, it is a
stretch to say that settling that dispute
over there has something to do
with an attack on our national security.
2004 Ron Paul 54:9
Economics is another issue. We are running out of money; and these endless
commitments, military commitments
and commitments overseas, cannot
go on forever. Our national debt is
going up between $600 billion and $700
billion a year, so eventually my arguments
will win out, because we are
going to run out of money and this
country is going to go broke. So there
is an economic argument against that.
2004 Ron Paul 54:10
Also, looking for guidance in the Constitution. It is very clear that the
Constitution does not give us this authority
to assume responsibility for everybody,
and to assume the entire responsibility
for Taiwan is more than I
can read into the Constitution.
2004 Ron Paul 54:11
But the issue I want to talk about more than those first three is really
the practical approach to what we are
doing. I happen to believe that the policy
of the One-China Policy does not
make a whole lot of sense. We want
Taiwan to be protected, so we say we
have a One-China Policy, which occurred
in 1982. But in order to say we
have a One-China Policy, then we immediately
give weapons to Taiwan to
defend against China.
2004 Ron Paul 54:12
So this, to me, just does not quite add up. If we put arms in Taiwan, why
would we not expect the Chinese to put
arms in opposition, because they are
only answering what we are doing?
What happened when the Soviets went
to Cuba? They put arms there. We did
not like that. What would happen if the
Chinese went into Cuba or Mexico? We
are not going to like that. So I think
this part is in conflict with what the
National Relations Act says, because
we are seeking a peaceful resolution of
this.
2004 Ron Paul 54:13
So I would urge my colleagues to be cautious about this. I know this will be
overwhelmingly passed; but, nevertheless,
it is these types of commitments,
these types of alliances that we make
that commit us to positions that are
hard to back away from. This is why
we get into these hot wars, these shooting
wars, when really I do not think it
is necessary.
2004 Ron Paul 54:14
There is no reason in the world why we cannot have friendship with China
and with Taiwan. But there is something
awfully inconsistent with our
One-China Policy, when at the same
time we are arming part of China in
order to defend itself. The two just do
not coexist.
2004 Ron Paul 54:15
Self-determination, I truly believe, is worth looking at. Self-determination is
something that we should champion.
Therefore, I am on the strong side of
Taiwan in determining what they want
by self-determination. But what do we
do? Our administration tells them they
should not have a referendum on
whether or not they want to be independent
and have self-determination.
So in one sense we try to help them;
and, in the other sense, we say do not
do it.
2004 Ron Paul 54:16
I am just arguing that we do not have to desert Taiwan. We can be very supportive
of their efforts, and we can do
it in a much more peaceful way and at
least be a lot more consistent.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank my friend for yielding.
I just want to correct the impression
the gentleman left with his observation,
which implied that Taiwan is getting
economic aid from the United
States.
2004 Ron Paul 54:18
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will answer that.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I have
not yet made my point. Taiwan is getting
no economic aid from the United
States.
2004 Ron Paul 54:19
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is correct. I did not say
that, so the gentleman has implied
that; and that is incorrect that I said
it.
2004 Ron Paul 54:20
I do know that it is a potential military base for us, because when I was in
the Air Force, on more than one occasion
I landed on Taiwan. So they are
certainly a close military ally.