|
UPDATE April 12, 2005:
REP. TANCREDO'S LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR
RESPONDS
WASHINGTON, DC, February 16, 2005 — Article
6 of the USA Constitution states that any treaty made
by the USA is the 'supreme law of the land.' Congressmen
are sworn to uphold the constitution.
The Shanghai
Communiqué and two other treaties between
America and China declare unequivocally that Taiwan
is part of China and that their separation shall be
peacefully resolved by the Chinese people.
Yet Colorado's Rep. Tom Tancredo (Republican) and
four other representatives introduced today a bill
in the USA House of Representatives to recognize Taiwan
and repudiate America's peace treaties with China.
This illegal act is deliberately designed to stir
up confrontation with China just as the European Union
is about to lift its outdated ban on arms sales to Beijing.
President Bush disapproves Europe's action but will
do nothing. Tancredo and his cohorts want increased
arms sales to Taiwan thus fueling tensions and helping
to lay a path, cherished by neoconservative warmongers,
for crisis in the Taiwan Straits.
Tancredo and his anti-China cohorts Rep. Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen (R - Florida), Chairman of the International
Relations Subcommittee, Rep. Mark
Souder (R- Indiana), Rep. Edolphus
Towns (D - New York), and Rep. John
Shimkus (R - Illinois), have committed an impeachable
offense.
Americans can protest their actions by contacting
their representatives in Congress and asking them to
refer the matter to the House
Judiciary Committee.
©Sinomania!, 2005
We Get Mail
Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted
by (maczimmerman@xxxxx.xxx) on Monday, April 11, 2005
at 16:54:43
[ed. note: Mac
Zimmerman is Legislative
Director for Rep. Tom Tancredo]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ToEditor: Letter Feedback: Feedback Subject: taiwan
trouble: email_content:
Interesting piece on your website about Tancredo and
Taiwan. You erroneously insinuated however that the
Shanghai Communiqué is somehow a treaty. It is
not a treaty, and in fact was never in any way approved
by either chamber of Congress. The communiqué,
like the decision to sever ties with the ROC (Taiwan)
and abrogate the very real treaty between the ROC and
US, was a unilateral decision by one presidential administration
that in no way binds any future administration. I'm
sure you know this, and have no qualms about the basis
for your story being patently untrue. Of course I don't
expect you to be truthful in your "reporting" -- anymore
than I expect truth out of Xinhua or any other communist
propoganda organ.
Regards
REMOTE_ADDR: 137.18.255.41
Sinomania! Response:
Dear Mac Zimmerman:
Thank you for your comments.
Much depends on your definition of the word "treaty."
It is true that a capital "T" treaty must be approved
by a 2/3 majority in the USA Senate. Adherence to this
pedantic definition, however, makes moot many of the
international agreements, memorandums of understanding,
assurances, "communiqués," and other instruments that
direct United States foreign policy and ensure stability
and peace in various parts of the world. A treaty after
all is any formal agreement between two or more nations,
relating to peace, alliance, trade, etc. All are equally
treaties regardless of what the treaty is called.
It is well known that some in the Republican party
currently view the One China policy an irrelevant "diplomatic
contrivance" as Majority Leader Tom
Delay has said. But it is still the foundation of
USA-China relations. It is the legacy of peace left
to us by President
Nixon.
The State Department in its publication of Treaties
in Force says "[t]he United States acknowledges
the Chinese position that there is but one China and
Taiwan is part of China." Further the Taiwan Relations
Act states "the United States decision to establish
diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China
rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan
will be determined by peaceful means" and considers
"any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other
than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes,
a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific
area and of grave concern to the United States."
Knowing full well China's claim of preemptive war
to prevent Taiwan secession (or Taidu
= Taiwan independence), Rep. Tancredo's bill can only
be seen as a move to disrupt USA-China relations and
endanger the region, in violation of the spirit of the
law (if not the law itself).
For the record, I am not affiliated with Xinhua
nor am I a "communist propoganda [sic] organ." Sinomania!
is completely independent and receives no monies from
any government. I am neither pro-China nor anti-Taiwan
but only working to try to lift the curtain of ignorance
that separates most Americans from Chinese.
I do believe American China policy is out-of-date and
in need of new vision. But Tancredo's bill is not the
way to go about it. I don't believe the Congressman
and the Republican party are willing to support Taiwan
independence at the risk of breaking relations with
Beijing and creating an international crisis that could
escalate into a nuclear conflict. I suspect the bill
is just another cynical manipulation of public opinion
to claim some sort of moral superiority over Beijing
and the Republicans — including the President —
who support the One China policy for political gain.
Yours truly,
Ben Calmes
Founder and Managing Director
Sinomania!
|
