Dear FAPA members and Friends:
You probably heard about an incident that Congressman Faleomavaega wrote an article to Taipei Times attacking FAPA regarding revision of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). Below is the report from FAPA HQ along with the article from Congressman Faleomavaega. Please take a look at it such that in case someone asks you about this issue, you have better understanding of the story.
Gary
* * * *
FAPA 回應法里歐馬維加議員
2009年3月30日
針對美國外交事務委員會亞太小組主席法里歐馬維加議員(Eni Faleomavaega)27日的新聞稿（請參考法里歐馬維加議員3月31日台北時報 Taipei Times投書)，FAPA（台灣人公共事務會）在此發表澄清聲明。
第一，法里歐馬維加議員提到FAPA對於第55號決議案文字遭到亞太小組委員會的修改深表不滿。但是，法里歐馬維加議員發佈新聞稿裡提到的二段修改文字，FAPA從未公開反對。這二段位於決議案 ‘Whereas’ 文字引用台灣關係法原文，FAPA何來反對之意？從台北時報3月21日與3月26日文章即可清楚瞭解，FAPA從未批評法里歐馬維加議員新聞稿提到的修正文字。
第二，FAPA對修正文字唯一不滿之處在於決議案結尾重點部份，所謂的 ‘resolved clause’。原版的決議案結論表示「美國國會重申對台灣關係法的承諾，視此法為台美關係的基石(cornerstone)。」亞太小組在3月19日討論決議案時，特將「基石」文字拿掉，以「視此法對台美關係非常重要」取代之。FAPA在得知決議案裡表達台灣關係法為台美基石這段重要性文字遭到刪除，立即聯絡外交事務委員會兩黨重要幕僚，表達不滿並向他們強調「台灣關係法為台美關係基石」這段文字的關鍵性。FAPA並輾轉得知中華人民共和國從中作梗，施壓委員會成員，導致最重要的「基石」文字遭到刪除。數日後，外交事務委員會成員告知FAPA，委員會決定將「基石」這段文字放回決議案。令人不解的是，法里歐馬維加議員的新聞稿竟然隻字未提最惹人爭議的「基石」這段文字。
第三，有鑑於中華人民共和國一再宣稱美中公報與一中原則是美中台三角關係裡最重要的基礎，FAPA在數年前開始於美國國會推動「台灣關係法為台美關係基石」的理念，並成功促使當時的國際關係委員主席將此段文字放入與台灣相關的決議案。眾議院外交事務委員會主席柏曼(Howard Berman)與副主席蘿斯列敦娜(Ileana Ros-Lehtinen)日前在眾議院表決55號決議案時，更雙雙引用「基石」文字，公開讚揚台灣關係法的重要性。
第四，台北時報社論純屬報社內部作業，FAPA從未就此聯絡或干涉台北時報。
第五，決議案有關「基石」一段文字遭刪除，FAPA視其為中國從中阻隢，此舉損害台美關係，並削弱台灣關係法的重要性。如果為了強化台美關係與保障台灣權益而與法里歐馬維加議員有所衝突，此結果雖令人遺憾，但是FAPA絕不會為了迎合美國國會議員而屈服於中國的要求。
* * * *
Coen Blaauw, executive director of the Formosan Association for Public Relations (FAPA) describes what happened:
On March19 (Thursday), the Asia subcommittee in the House Foreign Affairs Committee marked up House Concurrent Resolution 55 (HCR 55), commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). When comparing the text of HCR55 from before the mark-up with the text from after the mark-up I immediately saw that the old text of HCR55 had been weakened.
When asked by the Taipei Times what I thought of the changes that had been made to the resolution, I expressed my concern and disappointment to the paper about the weakened language in the resolution.
The Taipei Times’ Washington correspondent wrote an article titled “U.S. resolution on TRA weakened” and I was quoted in the article.
There were numerous changes made to the resolution. Most were cosmetic with no change in substance. My main concern was with the specific language that described the importance of the TRA: the word “cornerstone“ had been taken out and replaced by the word “vital”.
I worked hard a few years ago with the then chairman of the foreign affairs committee to make the language “cornerstone” widely accepted and used in Congress when describing the significance of the TRA. And promoted the phrase “that the TRA is the cornerstone of U.S.-Taiwan relations” in an attempt to counter the Chinese who claim that the three communiqués are the cornerstone of U.S.-Taiwan relations.
That same afternoon, I was constantly on the phone with key staffers on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. I talked to both Democrats and Republicans. I discussed in detail with them that I was not happy that the word “cornerstone” was taken out and I re-emphasized the importance of bringing the word “cornerstone” back into the resolution. Especially, since I was told that the new watered down text of HCR55 was the result of CHINESE PRESSURE.
On March 20 (Friday), the FAPA Young Professional Group (FAPA YPG) read the Taipei Times article and asked FAPA Headquarters what they should write if they wanted to write to their Members of Congress on the weakened resolution. Iris drafted a sample letter for FAPA YPG to send. That day, I was again on the phone with key staffers on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Then on March 23 (Monday), we received a phone call first thing in the morning from the Foreign Affairs Committee inquiring whether FAPA was doing a letter writing campaign on the resolution. We informed the committee that FAPA YPG was doing that because they were upset when they had read the Taipei Times article and wanted to do something for Taiwan. Two hours later, we were told that the word “cornerstone” was back in the resolution and that the resolution would go to the floor for a vote the next day. Then, on March 25th, the Taipei Times published an editorial calling Faleomavaega “no friend of Taiwan”. I was quoted on the March 26 Taipei Times article regarding the passage of the resolution with “cornerstone” being brought back in. I told the Taipei Times that bringing cornerstone back was a “Meaningful Victory.”
In the early morning of March 28 (Saturday), Faleomavaega’s office sent out a press release to the Taiwanese press (see below – followed by the statement by Taipei Times Washington DC correspondent William Lowther in which he writes that he stands by his earlier reporting).
Faleoamavaega’s office completely missed the whole central point of the debate – the debate over the word “cornerstone”. The two pieces of resolution language that Faleomavaega raises in his press releases were never a problem to us at FAPA.
In his statement, Faleomavaega also accuses FAPA of much more:
- That FAPA has the desire to turn the TRA into a platform for independence. We don’t.
- Then the statement reads: “One might conclude that your newspaper stands in opposition to the will of your people, who voted in 2008 for a change in Administration and for a more honest government.” That is a very unCongressional claim to make.
- And the statement reads that “It is clear that FAPA’s intent is [… to] pit Taipei against Beijing and then call upon the U.S. military to come to its aid.” Strange.
- Also, that Ronald Reagan and Dick Lugar believed that Taiwan should unify with China. It goes without staying that FAPA believes that ONLY the people of Taiwan have the right to determine Taiwan’s future.
I will encourage everyone to take Faleomavaega’s assault on FAPA as “a badge of honor”. We did what was good for Taiwan. The bottomline is that the language of the resolution got weakened because some members of Congress received pressure from China. It was my job to make sure that in this House resolution Taiwan’s interests came first. We did what we had to, even if it meant attracting the wrath of Faleomavaega.
Ultimately, this episode shows – as one senior foreign affairs committee staffer told Iris and me last week – that “They will not be happy for a few days but they will respect you more because you are a force to be reckoned with!”
* * * *
Congressman Faleomavaega’s response to Taipei Times Editorial on March 25, 2009:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: March 27, 2009
Washington, D.C. — FALEOMAVAEGA SAYS HE WILL NOT BOW TO FAPA
Congressman Faleomavaega, Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs’ Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment announced today that he is responding to false and misleading reports published by Taipei Times regarding his involvement with legislation about the 30th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). A complete copy of Faleomavaega’s letter to the editor of the Taipei Times is included below.
Dear Editor:
I am writing in response to an editorial you recently published on March 25 entitled, “Faleomavaega no friend of Taiwan.” No name is attached to the editorial, which suggests that either the author or your newspaper has its own political agenda.
Given that your paper published false reports from Coen Blaauw, executive director of the Formosan Association for Public Relations (FAPA), on March 21 and again on March 26, in which he twisted the truth about my involvement with the 30th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), and also given that your newspaper never bothered to contact my office for a response to his untruthful comments, one might conclude that your newspaper stands in opposition to the will of your people, who voted in 2008 for a change in Administration and for a more honest government.
For your information, like every other Subcommittee, the House Foreign Affairs’ Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment is responsible for reviewing the language of any bill put forward within its jurisdiction, and this is no different for the legislation celebrating the 30th anniversary of the TRA. Prior to the Subcommittee’s markup, Chairman Howard Berman and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of the Foreign Affairs committee agreed to the changes I offered, as did the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Manzullo, and the bill’s author. All other Subcommittee members agreed to the language by unanimous consent. As is the case with America’s democracy, at any time, any Member involved could have objected to the new language being offered but instead Members chose to support the changes. While Congressman Royce did raise an issue about the trade references being struck, he still supported the bill. I was also in favor of including trade references as long as the legislation made plain that Taiwan’s number one trading partner is not the United States but Beijing.
Since my proposed changes were supported by all members of the Subcommittee as well as the Chairman and Ranking member of the full committee prior to the markup, are these Members of Congress also no friend of Taiwan? I do not believe so. In fact, unlike Mr. Blaauw, Members understood that the new language offered was consistent with the TRA, and I would suggest that Mr. Blaauw and your staff reporter, Mr. Lowther, review the TRA. In so doing, both will learn that the alternative language which they have criticized which states that – “it is the policy of the US to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character” – is language straight from the TRA.
The following language, which I added, is also straight from the TRA – 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.”
In view of the fact that this language is straight from the TRA, why would your anonymous writer, your reporter, or Mr. Blaauw take issue with this language? I submit they take issue because it is their desire to turn the TRA into something it is not. The TRA is not a platform for independence, as they would like it to be, and the American people, as well as the young people on Taiwan, deserve to know the truth about the history of the TRA. The TRA came into existence only after the United States established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. Since 1979, U.S. policy regarding Taiwan has remained unchanged. The Joint Communiques, together with the Taiwan Relations Act, are the foundation of our One China policy, which implies, as Republican President Ronald Reagan once said, that “the Taiwan question is a matter for the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to resolve.” Every U.S. President since 1979 has stood by this assertion. As Senator Richard Lugar, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in 2001, said, “For many years, successive U.S. administrations have affirmed that there is one China and that the people on Taiwan and the people of China should work out a plan for peaceful unification.”
This continues to be the policy of the United States, and I stand by it for the sake of our U.S. troops. Under no circumstances will I bow to FAPA on an issue of this importance as it is clear that FAPA’s intent is to water down our One China policy, and pit Taipei against Beijing and then call upon the U.S. military to come to its aid.
Faleomavaega concluded his letter by stating, “Such an approach is wrong, and our American troops deserve better from FAPA and the Taipei Times.”
* * * *
Taipei Times correspondent William Lowther’s reply in Taipei Times of March 31, 2009:
First, I stand by my reporting. In the rush of business, Mr. Faleomavaega’s changes slipped through unnoticed by Committee staff. I brought the changes to the notice of FAPA and FAPA alerted individual Committee members who reacted immediately by reversing the major change that Mr. Faleomavaega had made. The Committee’s actions speak louder than Mr. Faleomavaega’s words.
This really boils down to one major change – he took out the word “cornerstone” and replaced it with the word “vital” when referring to the TRA. It was a meaningful change and a change that China wanted. The reason, as I said in the original story, is that it is enormously important that US policy should be based on the TRA. By replacing “cornerstone” with “vital” Mr. Faleomavaega was watering down the significance of the TRA.
FAPA saw this at once. And so did most members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee when it was pointed out to them. When they spoke on the floor of the House, these members – one after the other – went out of their way to specifically use the word “cornerstone” in their remarks. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, deliberately used “cornerstone” in her first sentence. And in remarks she prepared for delivery at a TECRO reception last week she underlined the word “cornerstone” in order to give it special emphasis. If the Committee agreed with Mr. Faleomavaega’s change, why on earth did they take action to stop it and put “cornerstone” back where it belonged?
Mr. Faleomavaega says that the Taipei Times “never bothered” to contact his office. I spoke directly with Mr. Faleomavaega after the subcommittee meeting.
Mr. Faleomavaega justifies his actions to change the TRA Resolution by quoting Senator Richard Lugar as saying in 2001 that “Taiwan and the people of China should work out a plan for peaceful unification.” Mr. Faleomavaega adds: “This continues to be the policy of the United States.”
In 2004, then Secretary of State Colin Powell said something similar. The Taiwanese government asked for a clarification. Mr. Powell immediately backtracked and said that the US goal was “really to have a peaceful resolution of the problem” between Taiwan and China.
The Associated Press reported on October 28, 2004: “For decades, Washington’s policy has been to avoid endorsing a specific resolution. It has simply urged both sides to work out their differences peacefully. In recent years, it has added that Taiwan’s people should have a say in any outcome.”
Following the flap that resulted from Mr. Powell’s original comment, the AP quoted David Lee – Taiwan’s representative in Washington – as saying that US officials had informed him that Washington’s policy had not changed. Mr. Lee said: “They’ve told me again that America’s position for the past 30 years is for the two sides to use dialogue to peacefully resolve the problem. It’s not peaceful unification.”
* * * *
References:
