[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WHY TAIWAN MATTERS, PART II
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 4, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-70
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-584 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
RON PAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
CONNIE MACK, Florida GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas DENNIS CARDOZA, California
TED POE, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DAVID RIVERA, Florida FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
ROBERT TURNER, New York
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Kurt Campbell, Assistant Secretary of State for
East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State....... 9
Peter Lavoy, Ph.D., Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense, Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, U.S. Department of
Defense........................................................ 20
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Kurt Campbell: Prepared statement.................. 11
Peter Lavoy, Ph.D.: Prepared statement........................... 22
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 52
Hearing minutes.................................................. 53
The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California: Prepared statement.................... 55
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement.......... 57
Written responses from the Honorable Kurt Campbell to questions
submitted for the record by the Honorable Eni F.H.
Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress from American Samoa. 59
WHY TAIWAN MATTERS, PART II
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2011
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock a.m.,
in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The committee will come to order.
After recognizing myself and the ranking member, my good
friend, Mr. Berman, for 7 minutes each for our opening
statements, I will recognize the chairman and the ranking
member of our Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific for 3
minutes each for their statements. We will then hear from our
witnesses and I would ask that you please summarize your
prepared statements at 5 minutes each before we move to the
question and answer period within the 5-minute rule.
So without objection, the witnesses' prepared statements
will be made a part of the record and members may have 5 days
to insert statements and questions for the record, subject to
the length limitations in the rules. The Chair now recognizes
herself for 7 minutes.
Today we continue our examination that we began in June of
``Why Taiwan Matters,'' and why, despite the importance of the
U.S.-Taiwan relationship, Taiwan has been so neglected in
recent years.
To counteract this growing inattention to Taiwan in certain
Washington circles, including inside this administration, and
to clarify congressional intent, I introduced last month, H.R.
2918, the ``Taiwan Policy Act of 2011.'' This legislation seeks
to further clarify and strengthen the Taiwan Relations Act,
which has long served as the cornerstone for American policy in
addressing cross-Strait issues. But there are increasing
challenges ahead of us.
On December 29, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt
addressed the American people in one of his famous fireside
chats. At that time, a small island democracy was being
threatened by the overwhelming force of a menacing continental
power. Roosevelt told the American people that ``We must be the
great arsenal of democracy'' to provide the means for the small
island country of Great Britain to preserve mutually-cherished
democratic values.
Yet, the Obama administration has beaten a steady retreat
not only from its obligations mandated in the Taiwan Relations
Act, but from the spirit of FDR's words, by not providing
sufficient means for Taiwan's defense.
The decision not to sell Taiwan the next generation of F-16
fighters is a decision with potentially grave repercussions.
Why must we appear so timid before Beijing? And what message
does such timidity in the face of Beijing's growing
belligerence send to our treaty allies in the Asia-Pacific
region, specifically Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and
Australia?
Nor does allowing Taiwan to slip further and further behind
in the cross-Strait arms race meet our own national security
requirements. And any cozying up to Beijing with a wink and a
nod on Taiwan arms sales is a clear violation of President
Reagan's Six Assurances. Is it customary to give the clearly
potential adversary the game plan for the defense of a friend
and strategic partner? Isn't that like telling the fox the
location of each chicken in the henhouse?
Taiwan needs our help. China is on the march in Asia, and
its primary target remains democratic Taiwan. In August,
Beijing began sea trials of its first aircraft carrier,
reportedly to be named after a Chinese admiral who led a
successful invasion of Taiwan over 300 hundred years ago.
The carrier will be used to further assert Beijing's
maritime claims, and will patrol the Taiwan Strait.
Beijing has bullied our Philippine allies in the South
China Sea, threatened our Japanese ally in the East China Sea,
and intimidated our South Korean ally in the Yellow Sea. In
June, for the first time since 1999, Beijing also sent up
aircraft that crossed into Taiwan airspace above the Taiwan
Strait. Taiwan responded by sending two of its outdated F-16
fighters to intercept the Chinese aircraft which, fortunately,
turned back.
But why must Taiwan depend on rickety old aircraft,
provided almost 20 years ago by the George Herbert Walker Bush
administration, to face state-of-the-art Chinese fighters?
Taiwan has repeatedly asked this administration to provide it
with the next generation of F-16 C/Ds. If the skies over the
Taiwan Strait become contested, how is Taiwan to defend itself
against Chinese state of the art fighter jets?
The 2011 Department of Defense's Annual Report to Congress
on ``Military and Security Developments Involving the People's
Republic of China'' noted that ``The balance of cross-Strait
military forces and capabilities continues to shift in the
mainland's favor.''
Randall Schriver, who appeared as a witness at the
committee's last Taiwan hearing in June, wrote this summer in
the Washington Times that ``Out of our deference to China, and
despite the rapid PLA buildup, the Obama administration to date
has the worst record on Taiwan arms sales since the passage of
the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979.'' A 2009 RAND study goes so
far as to claim that the Chinese military ``likely has, or will
soon have, a credible ability to challenge the United States
and Taiwan for air supremacy, perhaps opening a window for an
invasion attempt.''
Likewise, the administration's most recent China Military
Power Report clearly shows the threats that Taiwan faces from
an increasingly muscular and aggressive China. It is obvious,
therefore, that Taiwan needs the next generation of F-16
fighters to protect her skies and she needs them now. And
Taiwan equally needs diesel submarines to protect her
territorial waters and she needs them now.
The upgrade of older model F-16s is a modest step in the
right direction, but insufficient to meet Taiwan's increasingly
urgent requirements for an effective air defense, including
late model combat aircraft. This raises questions about the
administration's commitment to ensure that Taiwan has the means
to defend herself against mainland China, as mandated in the
Taiwan Relations Act.
And more broadly, Taiwan needs an active American policy to
promote deeper ties between our two nations. Such a
reinvigorated policy should include high-level official visits,
a free trade agreement and, as soon as all homeland security
criteria are met, Taiwan's early admission to the
Visa Waiver Program once security requirements are
finalized.
These proposals are included in the legislation that I
introduced and that I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks.
And now I turn to my friend, the ranking member Mr. Berman for
his opening remarks.
Mr. Berman. Thank you, my friend, Madam Chairman. At the
first hearing we had in June, I made an extensive opening
statement on the critical importance of the U.S.-Taiwan
relationship. Today, as we open part two of the hearing, I want
to reiterate my strong support for Taiwan and for bolstering
all aspects of our bilateral ties.
With an upcoming Presidential election in Taiwan next year,
the people of Taiwan will once again exercise their democratic
right to directly choose a President. I strongly support
Taiwan's vibrant democracy. I want to assure the Taiwanese
people that the United States will respect the choice they make
in January and will continue to support them, no matter who is
elected.
Despite a marked improvement in the economic and social
ties between Taipei and Beijing, China still has not renounced
the use of military force against Taiwan. On the contrary,
Beijing has increased the number of missiles targeted at
Taiwan. During the earlier hearing on Taiwan, members on both
sides of the aisle expressed a strong commitment to maintaining
Taiwan security in the face of the growing Chinese military
threat.
To address this threat, the United States should continue
to supply Taiwan with weapons so that it can defend itself. I
welcome the Obama administration's recent decision to upgrade
Taiwan's existing fleet of F-16 fighter jets and would note
that this administration has sold more defense systems to
Taiwan in a shorter time span than the previous administration.
However, I view the upgrades only as a first step. Taiwan's
air force needs more advanced F-16s to adequately defend itself
from China and it needs them soon. Projections of Taiwan's air
force stocks indicate a significant decline from its current
fleet of 377 fighter jets which includes F-16 A/Bs, Vietnam era
F-5s, Taiwanese indigenous fighters and Mirage 2000s. A
decrease from that number, 377 to fewer than 275 fighters by
2020.
Not only will Taiwan have fewer planes, but also less
capability while the Chinese air force and missile squadrons
deploy across the Taiwan Straits are growing at an exponential
rate. As a result of the administration's decision, Taiwan will
ultimately have 145 F-16s that have been retrofitted to be
equivalent to F-16 C/Ds through the sale of the upgrade kits.
But if the administration had provided both the upgrade kits
and the advanced fighters requested by Taipei, then Taiwan
would have 211 F-16 C/D aircraft delivered in the same time
period as the upgrade kits alone.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today to
hear their views of how Congress and the administration can
work together to support Taiwan's democracy and security. And
with that I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Berman. I
now would like to recognize members for 1-minute opening
statements beginning with Mr. Smith of New Jersey, the chairman
of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for
calling this very timely and important hearing. A welcome to
Assistant Secretary Campbell and Deputy Assistant Secretary
Schiffer.
Taiwan is a special place, as we all know, with very
special people. Through adversity, struggle, and courage, the
Taiwanese people have created a vibrant, free, and democratic
society that is a beacon of hope and light in that part of the
world. This strategic ally and economic powerhouse also serves
as an example of a society where human rights are highly
valued, promoted, and upheld. In Taiwan, the values of freedom
of religion, freedom of expression, worker rights, and the rule
of law are not just given lip service, but are core principles
taught to each new generation.
But maintaining freedom comes with a price. Vigilance,
preparedness, and a commitment to a strong national defense
cannot be taken for granted, but must be pursued and
maintained.
As the United States fought the battle of ideas and values
with the former Soviet Union, Taiwan by its very existence
fights the battle of ideas and values with those nations that
seek to limit and repress their citizens, especially the PRC
through institutional injustice, lack of freedom in residence
and movement, and the horrific corrosion tactics which destroy
families and communities. With that, I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Another gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sires is recognized.
Mr. Sires. Madam Chairperson, I'll be very brief. I'm just
happy to be here to listen to what you have to say and I am a
supporter of the sale of the fighters to Taiwan and I'm very
happy to see that they moved forward on democracy where they
actually had a transfer of power. So I'm just supportive and
thank you very much.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Sires. Mr. Burton is
recognized. He is the chairman on the Subcommittee on Europe
and Eurasia.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Taiwan has been a
great ally of ours for as far back as I can remember and I've
always thought it was unseemly that we wouldn't allow their
chief executive to visit the United States or even get off the
plane. I just think it's terrible. And while China has 1600
missiles pointed at Taiwan, we continue to just piddle around
and not give Taiwan the support that they need to defend
itself. They have asked us personally, me personally, and
others, for the upgraded F-16s and the kits that will keep them
in a positive situation. They've also asked for a diesel-
powered submarine so that they can defend themselves.
And it just seems to me totally unacceptable that this
administration and the Congress of the United States and the
Government of the United States does not support Taiwan and
sell them the needed equipment necessary to defend themselves.
They're not going to attack China. They want to be able to
defend themselves.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Burton. Mr.
Royce is recognized. He's the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Madam Chair. In two generations,
Taiwan has moved from poverty to prosperity, from autocracy to
democracy. And unlike China, Taiwan is truly a responsible
stakeholder in Asia. However, Taiwan faces several challenges.
China's rapid military buildup, its continued aggressiveness in
the South China Sea are big concerns and yes, I'm afraid we're
falling short, giving China too much sway in our relations with
Taipei. We should be moving on the advanced F-16 fighters, not
just the upgrade kits.
Let me also say that we should move forward with our Trade
and Investment Framework Agreement with Taiwan. And we should
use this dialogue to increase the prospects of securing a U.S.-
Taiwan free trade agreement in the future. Our trade relations
with Taiwan have deteriorated over the last several years as
American businesses continue to lose market share. The best way
to bolster trade ties would be to initiate negotiations for a
free trade agreement. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Royce. Mr. Connolly
of Virginia is recognized for 1-minute opening statement.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank
you for having part two of this very important set of hearings.
The U.S.-Taiwan relationship is a very important one. It's our
ninth largest trading partner. We've invested a lot in the
security of the Taiwan Strait. The ultimate outcome in the
Taiwan Strait must be settled between the Chinese, but it must
be settled peacefully. We have a statutory obligation under the
Taiwan Relations Act to protect and to provide for the defense
capability of Taiwan.
I certainly look forward to hearing why the administration
decided to upgrade the F-16s that exist now in Taiwan rather
than providing the order of new F-16 weapons requested and that
I consider to be a reasonable request by the Government of
Taiwan.
I thank the chair and look forward to talking to our
witnesses.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chabot is
recognized. He's the--okay. Ms. Schmidt is recognized from
Ohio.
Ms. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this
very important hearing. I just want to say a few things. The
best defense is a good offense. For the Taiwanese, that means
the F-16s, and we need to sell them to them and sell them to
them immediately. China is rapidly building up its military, in
addition to an almost 13 percent increase in their defense
budget last year. They purchased their first aircraft carrier
from Ukraine under the guise that it was going to be used as a
floating casino. Taiwan needs to be able to protect itself and
we have the ability to help them do that.
We also need to work on trade issues, including free trade
agreements, the Visa Waiver Program, and finally, we need to
honor the Taiwan Relations Act. I yield back my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much. Another member
from Ohio, Mr. Johnson is recognized.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman and I appreciate our
important panel being here today to discuss the relevance of
Taiwan to our national security and foreign affairs objectives.
Over the past few months concerns abound surrounding China's
military buildup and its implication for the Asia Pacific
region. China has significantly surpassed Taiwan in military
capability and as the sale of new F-16s fails to move forward
in replacing Taiwan's F-5 fleet that disparity continues to
mount.
Even with the sale of the new F-16s, Taiwan would still be
far behind Chinese military capability.
In dealing with Taiwan, we must work to emphasize the
shared values that induced us to become a defender and advocate
for Taiwan in the first place: Human rights, democracy, strong
market economies, and freedom. I'm glad that that's what this
committee promotes and this Congress promotes and I look
forward to hearing from the panel today.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much. Mr. Marino is
recognized for 1 minute. Thank you, sir. Mr. Gallegly is
recognized for 1 minute for his opening statement.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I think it's
clear that my position on Taiwan is well documented and the
support that I think we have from the entire Congress is one
that we can be proud of. The sale of the F-16s is critical and
vital to the national security.
I have so many things that I'd like to say and time won't
allow me to do this, so I just ask unanimous consent that I may
place a statement into the record.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much. Ms. Bass is
recognized for 1 minute opening statement and Mr. Cicilline
passes as well. So now Mr. Manzullo, he'll have 3 minutes. He
is the subcommittee chairman on Asia and the Pacific.
Mr. Manzullo. Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this
important hearing on the relationship between Taiwan and the
United States. We're here today because Taiwan matters. Indeed,
it is one of the few beacons of freedom and democracy in a very
dangerous neighborhood and our support for Taiwan must remain
strong and steadfast. And I welcome Dr. Kurt Campbell, my
fellow earthquake survivor in New Zealand in February this past
year, when we were down there for the Trans-Pacific
Partnership. It's pretty good for both of us to be here in
light of what happened down there. We welcome you today.
The administration's decision not to sell modern F-16s to
Taiwan is in a sense truly disappointing. Instead, Taiwan was
offered a glass that's half full, an option of updating its
aging F-16 fleet which defense experts agree is not sufficient
to defend against China's burgeoning arsenal. Denying Taiwan
the critically needed weapons system only weakens that
government's ability to defend itself and may even embolden
China and indeed sends the wrong message to Mainland China as
to our relationship with Taiwan.
Thus, I'm glad the administration witnesses are here today
to discuss the rationale behind the decision not to sell the
upgraded fighters to Taiwan.
Maintaining a close relationship between the U.S. and
Taiwan is beneficial for the American people. Just last week,
the delegation of 17 people from Taiwan visited the 16th
Congressional District of Illinois which I have the honor of
representing to announce Taiwan's intention of purchasing
approximately $5 billion worth of corn and beans. This was a
significant gesture and re-affirmation by Taiwan that the
relationship between our two countries remains a high priority.
The fact that Taiwan's is America's 9th largest trading partner
and 13th largest export market for agricultural products should
not be forgotten.
Beyond defense cooperation and related matters, the U.S.
must do more to grow the relationship with Taiwan. It is in
America's interest to resume negotiations with Taiwan to
include a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement in the near
future. Furthermore, it is time to end the ridiculous policy of
prohibiting high level Taiwanese Government officials from
visiting Washington. It's astounding that the Foreign Minister
of Burma is allowed to meet with senior State Department
officials in Washington while high level visitors from Taiwan
are turned away. This gives the awful impression that
representatives of cruel and despotic regimes are given better
treatment than representatives from the government committed to
democracy and freedom. Surely, this is not what America is
about.
Madam Chairman, Taiwan matters and we must do more to
support this relationship.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Manzullo.
And now we'd like to hear from the ranking member of that
subcommittee, Mr. Faleomavaega. He's recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to
personally welcome my good friend, Assistant Secretary Campbell
to appear before this committee and to give us a little status
report on the latest in terms of the administration's efforts
in dealing with Taiwan.
Madam Chair, Taiwan does matter. From a historical
perspective, I believe Taiwan was one of the most crucial
issues that took place when Kissinger was sent as a special
envoy by President Nixon during the '70s, but even before that,
Taiwan became a prize of war. When China was in the state of
civil war, and we all know the history of what happened was
that between Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek. Chiang Kai-shek
lost the war and he ended up in Taiwan. And with the fervent
effort or hope that someday he will someday return to Mainland
China to overcome Mao Zedong's Communist forces, etcetera,
etcetera. Well, that never happened. That never happened. In
fact, even the Korean War, it's my understanding that Mao
Zedong was about to attack Taiwan.
President Truman sent the 7th Fleet to give indication to
China that we are not going to do something like this. Mao
Zedong backed off and in fact, this incident also occurred when
a very crucial question came into being before the United
Nations, whether or not Chiang Kai-shek representing 23 million
people was in a position to represent 1 billion people in
Mainland China and it was such that President Carter made the
decision that there had to be a change in terms of Taiwan no
longer officially representing all of the Chinese people before
the United Nations and as such this took place where the
Peoples Republic of China then became the official
representative, not only in the Security Council, but with the
United Nations.
Taiwan matters because we also came very close in terms of
the situation that happened during President Clinton's
administration where he had to send two battle groups to the
Taiwan Straits again to show strong indication to China that
because of our commitment and because of the Taiwan Relations
Act in terms of our commitment in making sure that the people
of Taiwan are protected from what enemy forces that may be that
will cause harm to them. I believe the terms and the provisions
of the Taiwan Relations Act is pivotal for us to better
understand and appreciate how the United States policy toward
Taiwan and the Taiwan Strait should continue.
Taiwan matters because I think in terms of what we have,
it's been a very consistent policy with all our Presidents,
with President Obama, and that is basically that the people of
Taiwan, the leaders of Taiwan are to negotiate and engage the
peaceful dialogue with the Peoples Republic of China and
whatever future that comes about in doing this that is to be
done peacefully. I think we're very firm in that commitment.
And then on the other hand, too, we are to make sure that
Taiwan receives necessary military equipment that is needed to
protect itself.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir. And now the Chair is
pleased to welcome our witnesses. First I want to introduce
Kurt Campbell, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian
and Pacific Affairs. Mr. Campbell has had a distinguished
career in Federal service including as Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Asia and the Pacific during the 1996
Taiwan missile crisis and as Director on National Security
Council staff also during the Clinton administration. Before
assuming his current position in June 2009, Dr. Campbell was
the CEO and co-founder of the Center for a New American
Security, CNAS. He also served as the director of the Aspen
Strategy Group and was the senior vice president at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies. He received his B.A.
from the University of California, San Diego, and his doctorate
in international relations from Oxford University. We are
pleased to have you here, Dr. Campbell.
And I'm also happy to welcome Mr. Peter Lavoy, the
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and
Pacific Security Affairs. Mr. Lavoy also serves concurrently as
Acting Assisting Secretary of Defense. Previously, he served
from 2007 to 2011 in the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence (ODNI) where he was Director for Analysis from
August 2010 through August 2011. Prior to joining ODNI, he
directed the Center for Contemporary Conflict and taught in the
National Security Affairs Department of the Naval Post-Graduate
School in Monterey, California. Welcome to both you.
I kindly remind our witnesses to keep your oral testimony
to no more than 5 minutes and without objection your written
statements will be inserted into the record.
Dr. Campbell, we will begin with you.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KURT CAMPBELL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF STATE FOR EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
STATE
Mr. Campbell. Thank you very much, Chairwoman. We both very
much appreciate the opportunity to come up and discuss and
testify before Congress on this critical issue and we share
many of the concerns that have already been raised in terms of
the importance of our relationship with Taiwan. Let me also
thank my colleague and friend, Congressman Berman for his
leadership on Asia; my friend, Congressman Faleomavaega for all
his work in the Pacific; and Congressman Smith, for his
extraordinary work on issues associated with separated families
and left-behind parents in Japan.
If you could also communicate to Mr. Manzullo, after the
tragic earthquake in New Zealand, we worked with him and his
staff. The United States is now the leading supporter of the
rebuilding of the lovely town of Christchurch in New Zealand.
We appreciate his leadership.
I ask and thank the chairwoman, you have my testimony, my
full testimony put on the record and I will just quickly go
over a few points if I could.
I want to just paint a general strategic picture of what I
think our nation is involved in right now. A major pivot, a
major rebalancing in terms of our foreign policy, national
security priorities. We are in the process of responsibly
moving from important consequential activities in the Middle
East and South Asia to more focus on the Asia Pacific region.
It is absolutely clear that we as a nation, the Executive
Branch, the Congress, we need to step up our game in the Asian
Pacific region across the board, trade, investment, security
issues, institutions and political and strategic engagement
across the board. Our allies, new friends and partners like
India, Indonesia, building a strong partnership with China, all
of the countries in the Asia Pacific region, look to the United
States as the key player in terms of the provision of our
security guarantees and the maintenance of peace and stability,
not only across the Taiwan Strait, but across Asia as a whole.
We are in the midst of this. This will take many years. It will
be difficult. We have enduring, extraordinarily expensive
difficult challenges in the Middle East, but Asia beckons.
Much of the history of the 21st century will be written in
Asia. The United States has to play a significant role in that.
A critical part of that over-arching strategy is building a
comprehensive, durable, and unofficial relationship between the
United States and Taiwan. It's essential. The bedrock of that
relationship is our security relationship and that is founded
on several principles and key understandings.
The Taiwan Relations Act stipulates, it's one of the most
important acts of legislative leadership in foreign policy in
our history. It stipulates that the United States must maintain
the capabilities to resist coercion, to maintain peace and
stability. We provide necessary defense articles to Taiwan and
it also requires us to consult actively on Capitol Hill on all
issues associated with Taiwan.
Taiwan Relations Act, plus the so-called Six Assurances and
Three Communiques, form the foundation of our overall approach,
but our relationship is not simply a defense relationship. It
is much broader. We seek to expand our economic and our trade
relations. The trade relationship today between the United
States and Taiwan is larger than the relationship between the
United States and India. That's how significant it is. And we
actually share the goals of moving forward on the TIFA
Agreement.
One of the most important things that we hear from
congressional friends is how critical issues like beef are in
terms of how they are treated. And I must say in our
discussions with Taiwan friends, we have been disappointed with
their lack of progress on this matter, but we are committed to
make progress on this and building a deeper relationship with
Taiwan economically and commercially going forward.
Chairwoman, I also agree with you that on the people-to-
people level, it's important to take critical steps, that the
Visa Waiver Program is extraordinarily significant. We've made
much progress in recent months and we are aiming toward the
very goal that you are aspiring to as well. So we see a broad
range, unofficial relationship as deeply in the interests of
the United States going forward.
Some have suggested that there is an inconsistency with
building a strong comprehensive partnership with China and
maintaining a strong relationship with Taiwan. I think that's
false. And I think if you look over the last several
administrations, there have been an attempt to build a strong
partnership with China and at the same time maintain a critical
key relationship with Taiwan and I think that's exactly what we
have done in the Obama administration and I think in terms of
the consequences, the positive outcome of this you see also a
strong improvement in relations across the Taiwan Strait
between China and Taiwan in recent years. That's very much in
U.S. interests.
Now we have also stated very clearly that we, too, are
concerned by military buildup across the Taiwan Strait. We have
communicated that directly, not just to China, but all of our
allies and friends in the regions who share these concerns. We
think that these steps are antithetical to China's own interest
in building a better relationship with Taiwan.
Ultimately, it is in American interest to see democracy
flourish in Taiwan. One of the things that bind us most closely
is this democratic experience. In January, Taiwan will be
conducting a major election both at the executive and the
legislative levels. The United States supports that election.
We don't play favorites. We don't choose candidates. We will
work closely with any leader or leadership that emerges there.
Thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell follows:]
----------
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Dr. Campbell.
Dr. Lavoy.
STATEMENT OF PETER LAVOY, PH.D., PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ASIAN AND PACIFIC SECURITY AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Lavoy. Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Berman, and
members of the committee. I thank you for the opportunity to
appear today to offer testimony on our policy toward Taiwan.
Stability in the Taiwan Strait is critically important to
the Obama administration and has a strong bearing on our
enduring interest in and commitments to peace and stability in
the Asia Pacific region. I commend the committee's continued
interest in this matter.
The Obama administration is firmly committed to our one
China policy which is based on three joint U.S.-China
communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act. This policy has
endured for over three decades and across eight
administrations.
Today the United States has a deep security relationship
with Taiwan as indicated by the administration's strong record
on arms sales. Defense articles totaling over $12 billion have
been approved for Taiwan in the last 2 years. We will continue
to make available to Taiwan defense articles and services to
enable it to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. But
our security relationship with Taiwan encompasses much more
than arms transfers. The Department of Defense has the
responsibility to monitor China's military developments and to
deter aggression and conflict. Under the Taiwan Relations Act
which has helped guarantee peace and stability in northeast
Asia for over 30 years, we are charged with maintaining the
capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or
other forms of coercion that would jeopardize security or the
social or economic system of the people of Taiwan.
China's economic rise has enabled it to transform its armed
forces from a mass army designed for wars of attrition on its
own territory to one capable of fighting short duration, high-
intensity conflict along its periphery against high-tech
adversaries. Although we assess China's ability to sustain
military power and the distance remains limited, its armed
forces are developing and fielding advanced military
technologies to support attacks in anti-access and aerial
denial strategies.
The majority of the PLA's advanced equipment is deployed to
the military regions opposite Taiwan. Beijing fields advanced
surface combatants and submarines to increase its anti-surface
and anti-warfare capabilities. Similarly, advanced fighter
aircraft and integrated air defense systems deployed to bases
and garrisons in the coastal regions increase Beijing's ability
to gain and maintain air superiority over the Taiwan Strait.
These systems also enable Beijing to conduct offensive
counter air and land attack missions against Taiwan forces and
critical infrastructure. Beijing has deployed over 1,000 short-
range missiles and land attack cruise missiles to garrisons
opposite the island to enable highly accurate conventional
strikes. China also has an expanded capability for asymmetric
warfare including special operations forces, space and counter
space systems and computer network operations.
In response to this growing threat, Taiwan authorities have
undertaken a series of reports designed to improve the island's
capacity to deter and defend against an attack by the mainland.
These include important investments to harden infrastructure,
build up war reserve stocks and improve the industrial base,
joint operation capabilities, crisis response mechanisms and
the officer and noncommissioned officer corps. These
improvements on the whole have reinforced the natural
advantages of island defense.
Taiwan's defense reforms today are important and necessary
and further efforts are needed. We are working closely with
Taiwan on such steps related to both planning and procurement.
A key conclusion of the report to Congress on Taiwan's air
defense force is that Taiwan's approach to defense cannot match
the mainland one for one. For example, Taiwan defense spending
cannot match the mainland's, nor can it develop the same type
of military the mainland is developing. Taiwan needs to focus
its planning and procurement efforts on nontraditional,
innovative, and asymmetric approaches. There's no single
solution.
Given this context, we believe the F-16 A/B upgrade made
significant contributions to Taiwan's air power. The Taiwan
Relations Act is a good law that makes for good policy, one
that has created the conditions for the two sides to engage in
peaceful dialogue. Our strong security commitment to Taiwan has
provided them the confidence to intensify dialogue with the
mainland and has resulted in improved cross-trade relations.
A Taiwan that is strong, confident, and free from threats
or intimidation is best postured to discuss and adhere to
whatever future arrangements the two sides of the Taiwan Strait
may peacefully agree upon.
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Berman, and members of the
committee, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today and look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lavoy follows:]
----------
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Excellent testimony. Thank you,
gentlemen.
I'm going to ask about the Taiwan arms sales. There have
been disturbing press reports indicating that the
administration may have given Beijing pre-notification of our
intent regarding Taiwan arms sales prior to informing Members
of Congress. A Defense News reported that ``the United States
and China on July 29 held top-level talks on Taiwan with
Washington working preemptively to avoid fallout as the
decision nears on whether to sell fighter jets to Taiwan.''
Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns held a closed-door session
with his Chinese counterpart and during Vice President Biden's
August trip to China, according to the Taipei Times, the
Chinese Vice President reportedly raised a ``deeply sensitive''
issue of arms sales to Taiwan during their first meeting as
well.
My question is can you unequivocally confirm that no
administration official including Vice President Biden and
Deputy Secretary of State Burns pre-consulted with their
Chinese counterparts on the administration's decision regarding
the F-16s or any other Taiwan arms sales? And related to that,
you had mentioned the Six Assurances of Ronald Reagan and I
mentioned it in my opening remarks.
Does this administration consider those assurances as an
essential component of Taiwan policy, including Reagan's pledge
to Taipei that the United States will not hold ``prior
consultations with the Peoples Republic of China on arms sales
to Taiwan.'' And lastly, can you explain to the committee why a
U.S. decision not to sell Taiwan new F-16 fighter jets
shouldn't be seen by many U.S. allies in Asia as a sign of
China's growing clout and America's relative strategic decline
in the region. Won't other nations interpret that decision as a
retreat and reduction of support for a long-time friend and key
nation in the chain of islands bordering China in the western
Pacific?
Dr. Campbell and Dr. Lavoy.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Chairwoman. That's a lot of
questions there, but let me try to take them one by one. I
probably have been in hundreds of meetings between American
officials and Chinese officials over a series of
administrations, Republican and Democratic. I was in the
meetings with Vice President Biden and I was with Bill Burns
when he met with the Chinese counterparts. I have never, ever
heard an American official ever talk to China and give advance
notice about any arm sales. I categorically reassure you on
that fact. And that is one of the most important aspects of our
over-arching approach to Taiwan and also to China.
As I stated in my opening testimony, yes, we do abide by
the so-called Six Assurances and among the most important is an
assurance that we do not pre-brief China about what we will do
with respect to Taiwan. But as importantly, Chairwoman, we also
talk to Congress before we talk to our Taiwan friends. So we
think that this over-arching understanding is one of the most
important underpinnings of how this implementation of the
Taiwan Relations Act has----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Actually, the last one was shouldn't
that decision about the fighter jets not be interpreted as a
weakening of our resolve.
Mr. Campbell. Let me just say generally speaking, the
larger context. First of all, overall, American arms sales to
the Asian Pacific region and to our allies and friends is up
substantially, Chairwoman. In addition, we are moving U.S.
forces from Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere to reinforce our
overall positions in the Asian Pacific region.
And lastly, I would simply point out if you look at the
decisions taken, and that's the issue, the decisions taken to
provide defensive sales to Taiwan during the Obama
administration, in 2010 and 2011, those 2 years, Chairwoman,
they are greater than any other 2 comparable years in the
history of the Taiwan Relations Act. So I would simply suggest
to you and I work in the Asian Pacific region a lot, I think if
you polled substantially, they would say that the United States
over the last several years comprehensively has fundamentally
stepped up our game in the Asian Pacific region.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Dr. Lavoy?
Mr. Lavoy. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I
certainly agree with Assistant Secretary Campbell. Under no
circumstances do we consult with China or any other foreign
power about potential arms transfers to Taiwan. It's a decision
the administration makes, based on the Taiwan Relations Act and
we do consult Taiwanese defense authorities. We have very
rigorous and effective defense consultations with them to
determine the appropriate prioritized needs for their defense
and we judged that this was useful.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir. Mr. Berman, the
ranking member is recognized for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Berman. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I just
would observe at the beginning that one perceives from a number
of the countries in East Asia and in South Asia and Southeast
Asia a desire for a closer relationship with the United States
which undermines this notion that we are thought of in that
area as a weaker and receding power. I think there's enough
basis on the evidence in front of us that what has happened in
the past couple of years and the significant closer, even
military ties with these countries to indicate that they're
investing a lot in America's continued presence in that region.
I want to get to the F-16s. There's a factual dispute here.
The administration on two occasions has asserted that the
upgraded F-16s, the kits, providing the kits will get greater
capabilities, more rapidly in a larger number of airplanes into
the field in a more decisive way than were a decision made to
provide the planes right now. The manufacturer of the F-16s
says that 66 new F-16 C/Ds could be provided 2 years earlier
than a like number of the upgraded A/Bs. Do you--would you like
to arbitrate this discrepancy between yourself and the
manufacturer regarding the time?
Mr. Lavoy. Thank you very much. As I said earlier, the F-16
A and B decision makes the most sense for Taiwan at this time.
It's a decision that was based on consultations with Taiwan.
Mr. Berman. My specific question is could they get the new
F-16s, 66 new F-16s faster than they will get the modified A/Bs
with the upgrade kits?
Mr. Lavoy. It's our conviction, again, based on discussions
with Taiwan authorities that upgrading their existing fleet of
F-16s A and Bs is the immediate priority. And we will ensure
that we work with the defense contractors to accelerate this
upgrade so that they can maintain and upgrade capabilities for
years and decades to come. And we will work with the defense
contractors to ensure this happens.
Mr. Berman. Well, you've asserted your position, but you
haven't shed light on why the upgraded F-16s will be available
more rapidly than the new F-16s. Is there something you could
add that would provide us--I understand what you've said, but
is this an issue you have no more to add to at this point?
Mr. Lavoy. No, I don't, sir. We will work with the defense
contractor to ensure that these are upgraded very quickly.
Mr. Berman. You've made a decision, at least at this time
not to do both. Is it the administration's feeling that
Taiwan's funds available for defense acquisition, there are
better things they could do for their own security interests
than both buy the upgrade kits and the new planes?
Mr. Lavoy. Thank you for that question, sir. We do look at
Taiwan's defense needs from a holistic point of view. And of
course, as I indicated, we have two major arms transfers that
we've concluded in this administration and we're continuing to
talk to them about a range of capabilities that they need to
ensure their self defense for years to come. We judge that as
an immediate priority, the F-16 A and B upgrade to take 145
existing aircraft that were becoming outdated, and upgrading
them to make them comparable to any fourth generation aircraft
we sold to other countries is an immediate priority. And we
have not ruled out any future aircraft decisions. We understand
Taiwan's interest in F-16 Cs and Ds and this is under
consideration.
Mr. Berman. All right. I'll use my last 30 seconds, I won't
get an answer, but on the underlining dispute I am still
intrigued by the proposal--the Professor Ken Lieberthal, to
what extent China and Taiwan could reach an interim
understanding for that a set period of time 25 years, China
commits to a force where any reliance on military means to
settle this issue and Taiwan commits to resist any actions to
seek independence during that period of time. And is that a
reasonable approach to dealing with the underlying issue that
has plagued us? And is that a role that the U.S. could
facilitate? You don't have any time to answer that, but that's
my fault.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Berman. Mr. Smith is
recognized for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Again, I want
to thank our two distinguished witnesses for their service to
our country and for being here and for their testimony. It does
shed light and it helps us make more informed decisions.
You know, as we all know there is only one potential
aggressor and that is not Taipei, it is Beijing. Taipei's
desire to procure F-16 C/D fighters is based on what I believe
Taiwan's growing alarm as to the PRC's systematic deployment of
more missiles, combat aircraft, and an order of battle that
increasingly by the week, by the month, certainly by the year
looks more ominous and more menacing to people across the
Taiwan Strait.
My question is about deterrence. Obviously, Taiwan is not
going to invade mainland China. It is all about defense. It's
reminiscent of our strategy with regards to NATO, our war games
with regards to NATO were always defensive. The Warsaw Pact and
the Soviet Union always had offensive war games because we knew
they would be the ones that would attack. Same is true, I
believe, and I think we all agree with regards to Taiwan and
the People's Republic of China.
So my question is about deterrence. Whether or not the
upgrades buy sufficient deterrence, whether or not the F-16 C/
Ds would truly provide the capabilities that Taiwan believes
that it needs. I mean they have very savvy and very effective
military planners who know what their capabilities are or lack.
And another question would be did Beijing object more, is
it objecting more to F-16 C/D sales, rather than upgrades? Of
course, they're going to object to everything. That's part of
their game plan, object to everything. But in their heart of
hearts and certainly our perception of what they are objecting
to, is it more about the F-16 C/Ds and did that play any role
in our not providing those aircraft?
Mr. Lavoy. Thank you very much for the question, Mr.
Congressman. You've asked two or three very important questions
actually. First on deterrence. Again, we work with Taiwan
defense authorities to appreciate the threat. I've outlined
what you've also described as a growing China military
capability. As I've indicated in my oral and written testimony,
much of this capability, in fact, the most advanced parts of
the capability are located in and around Taiwan. So it is a
threat that the Taiwan defense authorities take very seriously.
We consult with them on this threat.
We are committed under the Taiwan Relations Act which is a
very good foundation for our policy to ensure that Taiwan can
maintain a robust, self-defense capability in the face of any
number of threatening scenarios.
And we believe that a strong, secure Taiwan, based on
survivable military capabilities provides the best deterrence.
The second question you asked is about Beijing's objections
to this particular arms transfer and relative to any other
potential arms transfer. Well, I can't answer that
hypothetically. We don't know how they would respond to a
different arms transfer. And they have expressed, PRC has
expressed its concerns about this. We understand them. But we
think that this still makes the best sense for our relations
with Taiwan and Taiwan's defense capability.
Mr. Campbell. Let me add just one other point if I could,
Congressman. The issue of the maintenance of peace and
stability which is really enshrined at the outset of the Taiwan
Relations Act, a critical component of that is not only the
provision of necessary defense articles as my colleague and
friend Dr. Lavoy has indicated, but it is also the maintenance
of a robust American presence in the Asian Pacific region. And
we intend as have a series of American Presidents and I believe
we'll continue this into the future to maintain a robust
capability that provides the basis of reassurance, not just
across the Taiwan Strait, but to Asia as a whole.
Mr. Smith. If I could, what do we perceive the game plan to
be on Beijing's part? I remember Wei Jingsheng and his father,
as you know, was very high up in the military, the father of
the Democracy Wall movement. When he got out of China and he
actually sat where you sat and testified at a subcommittee
hearing on human rights, he is a tremendous human rights
advocate. But he said we don't realize that they are building
to the point where they hope not to even fire a shot, because
their capability will be so superior to that of Taiwan, but if
necessary, they would. And the intentions of Beijing are not
benign. And I know we know that, but it seems to me that
providing the best capability on the part of Taiwan,
notwithstanding the objections of Beijing, to deterring war, is
the best way we should proceed.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Campbell. Do you want me to answer the question?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Maybe in a later format. Mr. Sires,
the gentleman from New Jersey, another gentleman from New
Jersey.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I just need you to
help me understand this relationship a little bit because on
one end it seems to be very confrontational. And as I read, I
understand that there are more economic and more cultural ties
now than has been in a long time between Taiwan and China. You
know, can you just help me understand a little bit of that? I
know there are a number of flights that have been increased and
there's some sort of family reunification. Is that correct?
Can you just--to me, that's--on one end, they've got 1600
missiles aimed at Taiwan and on the other end, there seems to
be a lot of economic growth between the two nations. So can you
just speak to that a little bit?
Mr. Campbell. Thank you. It's an excellent question,
Congressman, and it actually feeds in nicely to the previous
question that was just asked. In truth, we generally don't
answer hypotheticals and it's hard to predict, put your mind
--put yourself in the mind of any of your interlocutors,
but it would be fair to say that what we've seen in recent
years are developments that we welcome, very substantial
people-to-people exchanges, economic interaction between Taiwan
and China. I think there has been an improvement in dialogue
and the economic relationship is stunning.
But at the same time, it is true we are concerned by a
buildup of military capabilities that is aimed at Taiwan and we
have communicated directly to Chinese interlocutors that
increasingly it seems that in their desire to build these ties,
these positive ties that the military component is inconsistent
and actually might undermine the very efforts to try to build
trust and confidence that they are involved with in terms of--
between the people to people of Taiwan and China. We'd like to
see more of those efforts continue and would like China to
reconsider some of the steps that they have taken along the
lines that Congressman Smith has laid out in terms of military
buildups which frankly undermine the very peace and stability
that all of Asia Pacific needs to thrive.
Mr. Lavoy. If I could add to that to my colleague,
Assistant Secretary Campbell. We firmly believe that a strong
and confident Taiwan is a Taiwan that's comfortable and
engaging with the mainland in improving the cross-trade
relations. And we believe that our policy, the policy of the
Obama administration, like the policy of seven previous
administrations in enhancing Taiwan's self-defense capability
has given it that confidence to improve cross-trade relations.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Sires. You still have
time.
Mr. Sires. I was going to give the rest of my time to my
colleague, Chris Smith, but he's----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sires. Mr.
Burton is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burton. First of all, thank you for being here. We
appreciate it. You've indicated, I think, that there are 1,000
missiles pointed at Taiwan and the information we have up here
is that there were 1,000 about 2 years ago, but now it's closer
to 1600. So when we get to the answers I would like for you to
respond to that.
Taiwan, as my colleague has said, just purchased $5 billion
in ag. products, so they're pretty good friend and trade
partner. Right now in the U.S. Senate, the Senate is moving,
trying to move legislation against China because they
manipulate their currency to the detriment of the United States
and other countries and so they don't have our best interest at
heart all the time, just as a point of information.
I think you've said that there's more military sales than
at any time in history and when we get to the answer part here
which you can respond to, I'd like to know what they're buying,
what they're getting because they want F-16s, new aircraft, as
well as the upgrades. And it was just pointed out to me they
have 145 F-16s, 20 of which are in the United States. That
means they have 125 there. They have air frames that are 20
years old. The Mirages are really going to be gone pretty quick
because they don't have the ability to upgrade those. The F-5s
are going to have to be retired, and so they need 66 new
aircraft.
So I'd like to ask you, the aircraft that they have that
have 20-year-old frames that you're going to upgrade in your
opinion, I'd like to know if you think those are as good as new
ones that are going in.
Number two, don't you think that Taiwan deserves to have
the ability as a very good friend and ally the ability to
defend themselves in the event that there would be an attack
and we hope that through negotiations that that will never
occur. Nevertheless, they're our ally and our friend. China
sometimes we think are our friends and sometimes as the Senate
is talking about right now, they aren't. So don't you think
that we ought to do everything in our power to make sure that
Taiwan has all the technical and military equipment necessary
to defend itself? And the new F-16s, which I've been led to
believe would be of longer duration as far as their ability to
be flown, would be the case. And the ones--you keep talking
about upgrading, have a shorter lifespan and so at some point
we're going to have to sell the new ones or let their whole
military capability deteriorate anyhow.
So those are just a few of the comments that I'd like to
make in questions. So if you could respond to those, I'd really
appreciate it.
Mr. Lavoy. Thank you very much, Mr. Congressman. I think
these are important questions and I'm happy to respond. First,
you asked a question about the Chinese missile threat. It's my
understanding that China has between 1,000 and 1,200 short-
range ballistic missiles, but there are cruise missiles as
well, and I think maybe the number that you're giving is the
combined missile capability. But it's a growing capability and
we take it very seriously.
Secondly, on the F-16s. Again, as I said, I want to
emphasize that it's our understanding, our belief, that the F-
16 retrofit provides the best bang for the buck at this time.
It's been the higher immediate priority.
Mr. Burton. I just want to follow up to make sure you
answer the question fully. Do you believe that the 66 F-16s,
the new ones that they want, would be a better quality and
longer duration than the upgrades that you're going to give
them?
Mr. Lavoy. Well, sir, I can state explicitly and we've
taken a very close look at this issue, that the F-16 retrofit
will provide Taiwan an advanced fighter whose detection
capabilities, in other words, radar capabilities, and weapons
engagement capabilities, its envelope, is comparable to any
fourth-generation fighter available to the United States Air
Force and available to our other--to our allies.
Mr. Burton. I've been led to believe that they will not be
as powerful as the new aircraft.
Mr. Lavoy. Well, sir, a contractor will be upgrading the
enhancing structure of the aircraft. And as we've indicated in
our congressional notification that we provided 2 weeks ago, we
do have an analysis for a new engine in that aircraft, so it
will be fully comparable to the F-16 Cs and Ds.
Mr. Burton. I'm running out of time. Let me real quickly
say you said there was more military equipment sold to Taiwan
than at any time in history. Now that covers a whole bunch of
things. They want the F-16s. They want the ability to defend
themselves. What have we been selling them?
Mr. Campbell. Congressman, I think the Department of
Defense can provide you a very full list. It's quite expansive
and what I said specifically was that the decisions taken in
2010 and 2011 are comparable or greater than any other 2-year
period since the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Campbell. I just want to underscore quite directly this
has been a bipartisan commitment across administrations and
we've had a consistent high-level commitment----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Mr. Connolly is
recognized.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Dr. Campbell, Dr.
Lavoy, briefly, what is your understanding of the U.S.
commitment by statute in the Taiwan Relations Act with respect
to the defense of Taiwan?
Mr. Campbell. I think at the outset I could restate it if
that would be helpful, but I went through and in my testimony I
have gone through that carefully, Congressman. Would you like
me to do that again here?
Mr. Connolly. No, Dr. Campbell, I just want a concise--I
mean we are committed by statute to the defense of Taiwan, are
we not?
Mr. Campbell. We are committed to the maintenance of peace
and stability across the Taiwan Strait, yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Does the act address the defense capability
of Taiwan?
Mr. Campbell. Yes, the act states clearly that the interest
of the United States is the maintenance of peace and stability
across the Taiwan Strait, that the United States maintain the
capabilities to be able to respond to any coercion or
disruption of that peace and stability and that we provide
defensive, necessary defensive articles to Taiwan.
Mr. Connolly. So it's not just peace and stability in the
Straits, it is explicit in the statutory commitment to the
defense capability of Taiwan?
Mr. Campbell. Yes. I'm sorry. I thought I had stated that
earlier, Congressman.
Mr. Connolly. I was just trying to make sure we get that on
the record.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Does the Taiwan Relations Act in any way,
shape, or form allow for, encourage, or even address
consultation with third parties in that statutory commitment?
Mr. Campbell. Third parties, the fourth aspect that we
think is extremely important in the Taiwan Relations Act is the
insistence on consultation between the Executive Branch and the
Legislative bodies----
Mr. Connolly. I'm referring to sovereign nations.
Mr. Campbell. No. In fact, there's nothing in the Taiwan
Relations Act about that, but as the chairwoman has
underscored, that soon thereafter there were a series of
assurance, the so-called Six Assurances. And part of that was
that the United States would not consult with other nations----
Mr. Connolly. And is it your testimony, Dr. Campbell, I'm
interrupting not to be rude, but I'm worried about my time.
Mr. Campbell. Fine.
Mr. Connolly. And the chair is very strict about it. Is it
your testimony here today that therefore no formal or informal
consultations or signals were sent to any sovereign third party
with respect to the decision of the administration to upgrade
the F-16s?
Mr. Campbell. Absolutely not. There were no consultations
of any kind in terms of specific weapons.
Mr. Connolly. Did the State Department receive,
nonetheless, representations from any third party sovereign
nation with respect to the F-16, the pending F-16 decision?
Mr. Campbell. I think as Dr. Lavoy has indicated, in a
number of interactions with Chinese interlocutors, they
regularly stress their unhappiness with American arms sales to
Taiwan.
Mr. Connolly. But that played no factor whatsoever in your
decision?
Mr. Campbell. It did not.
Mr. Connolly. You just said to Mr. Rohrabacher, I mean to
Mr. Burton, that essentially the upgrades you're looking at in
the existing F-16s, even though they're aging, will actually
make them comparable in capability to new F-16 C/Ds. That's
what you just said?
Mr. Campbell. I think that's what----
Mr. Connolly. Dr. Lavoy.
Mr. Lavoy. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Connolly. If that's the case, why not just sell them F-
16 C/Ds? Why are we quibbling?
Mr. Lavoy. Well, sir, again, we're working with Taiwan
defense authorities to prioritize the upgrade, the retrofit of
their existing 145 aircraft. Many more aircraft that might be
contemplated in the C and D new replacement----
Mr. Connolly. But Dr. Lavoy, why not just give them the 66
we were talking about and then you can upgrade the rest? I was
just in Taiwan. I didn't meet a single defense official, from
the President on down, who said no, no, no. We're happy with an
upgrade as opposed to our original request of C/Ds. I mean they
may live with the upgrade, but their clear preference is for F-
16 Cs and Ds.
Mr. Lavoy. Well, sir, these are two separate issues. They
were very pleased with the upgrade of the As and Bs. It does
make sense. We believe that it makes sense for the security and
they believe so. And we are considering--we know their
interests in the Cs and Ds and we are considering that request.
Mr. Connolly. You are still considering the request for----
Mr. Campbell. I think what he means, Congressman, is that
we rule nothing out. We continuously evaluate the situation
across the Taiwan Strait. We believe at the current stage that
the decision on the upgrade was the appropriate step. It is
part of a strong and consistent determination of the United
States to maintain strong defensive capabilities of Taiwan.
Mr. Connolly. And final point since my time is running out,
Dr. Campbell, you said that the Taiwan Relations Act does
require Executive and Legislative Branch consultation. This
committee, I think, unanimously adopted the Connolly-Berman
Amendment that called on the administration, in fact, to honor
the request of Taiwan. Somehow that factored in your decision
making?
Mr. Campbell. Let me say that we believe that the
consultative dimension of the Taiwan Relations Act between the
Executive and Legislative----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Mr. Royce----
Mr. Connolly. We'll leave it a mystery, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Nonproliferation, and Trade.
Mr. Royce. Thank you. Let me ask Secretary Campbell a
question here. I've long been an enthusiast for increasing
trade and investment, increasing that relationship with Taiwan.
Taiwan is based on the rule of law and you see the consequences
of it unlocking a lot of entrepreneurial talent in terms of the
Taiwanese people. And for far too long, I think, we've drawn
this process out.
Now, the Obama administration sent the KORUS Agreement to
Congress for a vote yesterday. My question is, now that KORUS
has been submitted to Congress, what can we do to move forward
with our Trade and Investment Framework Agreement agenda with
Taiwan? What can we do to advance that and how can we use this
dialogue to increase the prospect of securing a U.S.-Taiwan
free trade agreement?
Mr. Campbell. Thank you very much and I very much
appreciate the question. I will say that I am very grateful for
the fact that we've been able to move ahead on the free trade
agreements. It sends a powerful message to Asia that we are
committed to an optimistic role in the burgeoning economies
that is really the cockpit of the global trade and economic
performance currently.
I think that will help us subsequently, Congressman Royce,
in terms of TPP and also our overall efforts in APEC.
I would actually like to ask you to assist us in this
matter. One of the things that you all have talked about is
your conversation with Taiwan interlocutors. I would simple
suggest the next time you meet with your Taiwan interlocutors
as we do, underscore to them how important it is that they take
the necessary steps on beef that will allow us to go forward.
Remember that the primary considerations on beef-related issues
and agriculture and ranch products are underscored for us in
all of our communications with Capitol Hill. They provide the
foundation for our engagement not just with Taiwan, but with a
variety of other countries, South Korea, Japan, and others.
We have, frankly, been disappointed with the lack of
progress on these issues. We've had a series of consultations
and we've made it very clear to Taiwan that we want to make
progress on this, but we need to see them to take the necessary
steps on beef moving forward.
Mr. Royce. We can figure out beef, I think, but we've also
got to have the political will to make it happen and part of
your role is to initiate those negotiations. And I would just
point out in the meantime, we had a witness at our last hearing
who explained how U.S. businesses were losing market share in
Taiwan, that that situation has deteriorated over the last few
years in terms of the trade relationship. And he laid out an
argument to us that the best way to bolster trade would be to
initiate negotiations for a free trade agreement. That's
probably the best way to get to a solution in terms of the beef
issue and other issues that are of concern.
But here's my concern. You have Asian countries that have
cut all kinds of bilateral trade agreements, over 170
agreements and the United States is only a party to two of
them, Singapore and Australia. We have a tremendous
opportunity, I think. Taiwan has been in kind of a tough
situation with pressure from China, but Taiwan and Japan signed
the first investment accord recently. I think that paves the
way possibly for other free trade agreements that they're
looking at.
What else could we do to help push an agreement between
Taiwan and the United States forward and make sure that the
U.S. is not left out in terms of the trade agreements that are
proliferating in Asia?
Mr. Campbell. Thank you. I would say, Congressman Royce, I
do believe that the effort that the United States has engaged
in now, the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership, has the
potential to be the highest quality, most sophisticated trade
deal of the 21st century. And we are in the process of moving
toward a very consequential period in those interactions. And
frankly, they've drawn attention and interest from a whole host
of other countries in the Asian Pacific region.
I think that step will help potentially encourage other
countries like Taiwan, other places like Taiwan, to take the
necessary steps to enable the United States to engage
intensively.
Mr. Royce. I agree, but that will take years. We need to
push this agreement with Taiwan now in my opinion.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to switch gears
a little bit. Gentlemen, Taiwan's military schedule to shift
from mandatory service to voluntary by the end of 2014, Dr.
Lavoy, are you concerned about the effect that this might have
on military cooperation and security issues?
Mr. Lavoy. No, we think it's a good measure, like a number
of defense reforms that Taiwan is undertaking to modernize its
capability and make it more robust and confident in its self
defense.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, and Secretary Campbell, your
testimony--in your testimony, you discuss the importance of
Taiwan joining the Visa Waiver Program. How would you assess
Taiwan's progress with respect to meeting the eligibility of
the Visa Waiver Program and what are the next steps that need
to be taken?
Mr. Campbell. Thank you on that. The Congresswoman referred
to this at the outset. Frankly, they've made enormous progress.
We've worked very hard on this. I've been very impressed by the
activities they've taken in terms of passport refusals. There's
a variety of technical steps that Taiwan has taken in terms of
how you go about applying for passports and we've been very
impressed with the determination that they have shown in this
manner.
There is a complex review process that has been established
working in consultation with Capitol Hill since 9/11 in terms
of countries needing to qualify on a whole range of issues. The
next steps are a series of determinations that take place
inside the U.S. Government, not just with the Department of
State, but with other agencies, the Department of Homeland
Security. But I will say very clearly that we have been very
impressed by the progress taken and I think we shared the
ultimate goals and ambitions that have been laid out in some of
the statements we've heard thus far.
Mr. Deutch. I understand that there are some technical
steps. I understand that within our Government there needs to
be some further evaluation. Can you tell us here whether there
are specific significant steps that need to be taken that we
would benefit from discussing here at this hearing?
Mr. Campbell. To be quite honest, Congressman Deutch, we're
actually quite close. We've made substantial progress. And we
are now in a process of evaluation. It is not simply Taiwan.
There are other countries that are involved in this. You have
to look at a whole series of factors. But I think there has
been a determination at the highest levels that this would be
an extraordinarily important contribution to improving the
people to people, the kind of business steps that Congressman
Royce has indicated and the other kinds of exchanges between
our two, between the United States and Taiwan in a way that
will serve our interests.
So I am--I am trying to be careful here, but we've made
enormous progress and I think we'll try to make sure we work
toward the finish line.
Mr. Deutch. I'm sure that you will, Secretary Campbell. I,
like a lot of my colleagues here, share your view that this
would be a very important step for a whole host of reasons. Can
you give us some sense of at least if you're not--if you choose
not to talk about specific steps or specific items that need to
be evaluated, can you at least give us a time line for
completing that evaluation?
Mr. Campbell. I think we can realistically expect to see
progress in the very near term.
Mr. Deutch. Okay.
Mr. Campbell. Congressman Deutch, part of the reason I am
being careful here is that this is not the exclusive purview of
the Department of State. There are other key agencies that are
involved. I would like not to be in a situation where I'm
prejudging those outcomes, but I will simply say we have been
charged at the highest level to make progress. We have made
substantial progress. I do not believe we would have taken all
of these steps if we were not determined to take this over the
finish line and do it in the near term.
Mr. Deutch. Madam Chair, I will accept moving us toward the
finish line in the very near term and I will yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much to my colleague
from Florida. Mr. Chabot is recognized, the chairman of the
Middle East Subcommittee.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I want to
thank you for holding this important hearing and I know that
you've been trying to pull this together for some time. We
appreciate your efforts on that and as one of the founders of
the Congressional Taiwanese Caucus I can say with certainty
that you are much admired in Taiwan for your friendship and
your tireless support of democracy in the region and around the
world and we thank you for that. And we thank our distinguished
panel here.
Over the years, I've often brought up the issues of high-
level visits and how the restrictions on diplomatic visits by
high-level Taiwanese officials to the United States are in my
mind both counterproductive and in fact, insulting to the
Taiwanese people.
Some of us on this committee can remember flying up to New
York City after votes one night to meet with then Taiwanese
President Chen Shui-Bian, a very good friend to the United
States. I would also note, I'd be remiss if I didn't say still
incarcerated, and as a long time friend of Taiwan, let me just
say that this to me smacks of Third Worldism and it amounts to
the criminalization of politics. I wish it would be dealt with
sooner rather than later.
Anyway, because of travel restrictions, he could not come,
the President could not come here to Washington to meet with
us. I remember hosting a Taiwanese legislator here in my
Washington office and only a few weeks later I had to travel to
Baltimore to meet with him. Why? Well, he had since become
Foreign Minister and he was barred from traveling to our
capital. That's ridiculous. And as I said before, it's
insulting to the Taiwanese people and that ought to be changed.
And on the issue of high-level visits, I also want to raise
the issue of high-level U.S. Government official visits to
Taiwan. Since the United States began its one China policy, few
U.S. cabinet officials have visited Taiwan. Secretary Clinton,
during her confirmation hearings, and she said at that time
that she would promote visits to Taiwan by U.S. cabinet
secretaries. Well, that was almost 3 years ago and no such
visits to our democratic ally have occurred. That needs to be
dealt with.
So I'm hoping our witnesses can respond to those concerns,
especially in light of the fact that high-level visits between
Washington and Beijing are commonplace. And when the latest
Communist dictator from the PRC comes calling, the red carpet
always goes out.
I also want to add my hope that the Obama administration
and this has been dealt with already, but I'm going to say it
again, would reconsider its decision not to allow the sale of
the F-16 C/D fighter jet to Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act,
in my view, clearly states the commitment of the United States
to ensuring that Taiwan is able to defend itself against its
often-hostile neighbor, Communist China. An aging Taiwanese
fighter fleet does not reflect that commitment, upgraded or
not, in my view. This argument that our evaluation is on-going
I don't buy it. As far as I'm concerned this administration
just doesn't want to upset China. That's the real issue here
I'm afraid.
I can remember going to Taiwan for the first time in the
mid-'90s. At that time, China had a number of missiles pointed
at Taiwan. My recollection is it was about 600 at that time.
Every year since then the number of offensive PRC missiles has
increased. Now it's estimated that more than 1600 Chinese short
and medium-range missiles are pointed at Taiwan, our democratic
friend and ally.
And before I yield to either of our witnesses, who would
care to comment on these issues, I want to make clear that this
is not a partisan matter with me. I've been very critical of
our Taiwan policy under both Republican and Democratic
administrations, so it's not politics. Bad policy is bad policy
no matter who is in charge. And just one final point. This
committee has consistently requested on-going substantive
discussions with the administration regarding security issues
impacting Taiwan. On all but one occasion those requests have
been rebuffed. Indeed, the administration has violated
reporting requirements relating to the Taiwan arms sales under
the Taiwan Relations Act. How can you say that the
administration takes seriously its obligation to consult
Congress regarding the defense of Taiwan as mandated by the
Taiwan Relations Act? And you've got 36 second to answer all
those questions.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Congressman. I'm not sure exactly
where to begin. I would simply say that we have an unofficial
relationship as you know, between the United States and Taiwan.
Nevertheless, we have broad and deep consultations as we speak
today. One of my deputies in the State Department responsible
for APEC is in Taipei. Our deputy secretary of State met a few
weeks ago in Auckland with his counterpart to discuss
cooperation in the Asian Pacific region.
In the larger context, my own sense is that Taiwan is a
flourishing democracy, largely because of the support of the
United States. It has a strong, enduring relationship with the
United States that will continue and has been bipartisan.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Ms. Bass
is recognized.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Madam Chair. Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State David Shear stated in March 2010 that the
United States is a strong and consistent supporter of Taiwan's
meaningful participation in the international organizations. He
also noted that Taiwan has been a full member of the Asian
Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. For the second time since
initiating APEC's summits in Seattle in 1993, the United States
will host an APEC summit in Honolulu in November.
I wanted to know from the witnesses, if you feel that
Taiwan's President should attend for the first time? And you
also had said in your testimony that we do--that the Six
Assurances is still a part of U.S. policy and I wanted to know
if you could reiterate those Six Assurances.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. I think I
stated a few times already now on the importance of the Six
Assurances and I will do so again. As I indicated, our APEC
Ambassador is currently in Taipei to assist in preparations.
Taiwan will be represented by a vice minister that is the
practice at APEC and we think that that is the appropriate way
to participate.
We are in close consultation with Taiwan on a range of the
issues that we are involved with in terms of the APEC agenda
and we look forward to their active support and engagement on
many of the issues that will be discussed in Hawaii when the
President convenes the group in less than a month.
You had one other question, I'm sorry?
Ms. Bass. I knew you had said several times that the Six
Assurances were a part of U.S. policy. As a new member, I was
just asking if you could reiterate what the Six Assurances are.
Mr. Campbell. They are primarily associated with no prior
consultations about arms sales.
Ms. Bass. Oh, I see.
Mr. Campbell. And there are some other variants of those
and I would be more than pleased to make sure that in a private
consultation come up and provide you greater clarity on those
issues.
Mr. Campbell. Okay, thank you. And one other question. As
Taiwan seeks greater international participation, what are U.S.
concerns that Taiwan has questioned the safety of U.S. beef,
even though Taiwan is a member of the World Organization for
Animal Health?
Mr. Campbell. Yes, and this gets back to the point that we
were raising with Congressman Royce. We want these assessments
to be signed space and evidentiary based, not on unfounded
claims. We believe that the steps that Taiwan needs to take on
beef have not yet been taken and that they are an impediment to
the kind of broader economic engagement that I think the entire
committee shares and believes is important going forward.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Ms. Bass. Mr.
Johnson of Ohio is recognized.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Dr. Campbell, in
May, a Chinese Communist official urged Taiwan's voters to
choose the right person in the upcoming Presidential election.
Then last month, according to an article in The Financial
Times, a senior United States official, after meeting with the
visiting opposition Presidential candidate from Taiwan, Ms.
Tsai, said that she left us with the distinct doubts about
whether she is both willing and able to continue the stability
and cross-Strait relations the region has enjoyed in recent
years.
Since when does the United States Government choose sides
in the internal elections of a democratic country?
Mr. Campbell. Thanks. And thank you very much, Congressman.
I stated very clearly in my testimony at the outset and
restated in my oral presentation as well, that one of the most
important things that ties the United States with Taiwan is the
vibrancy and the engagement of our two democracies.
Taiwan is coming up on an extraordinarily important
election in January. The United States will not interfere in
any way with that electoral process. We do not pick candidates.
We do not take sides. And we will be committed to work closely
and cooperatively with whoever is elected out of that free and
fair election going forward.
I would simply say also that the visitor that you referred
to, Madam Tsai, when she came to Washington was greeted and
engaged with very respectfully, both up here in Capitol Hill
and with key officials in the United States Government as well.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I don't know how we can say we're not
picking sides when we make public statements like that.
Mr. Campbell. I would simply say, Congressman, with
respect, that was an unsourced, blind quote in a newspaper.
Immediately thereafter, the United States Government issued a
very clear statement which has been reiterated again and again
and I will say so again here now. The United States does not
take sides. We support the strong democracy in Taiwan. We will
work closely with whatever candidate emerges from this election
and we believe that it this is an essential feature of Taiwan,
more than anything else, that keeps the United States and
Taiwan close together.
Mr. Johnson. I certainly hope we stick to that because it
appears that, you know, we're leaning toward becoming so eager
to please China that we're now taking our talking points from
Beijing in regards to Taiwan's political future.
Also, Mr. Campbell, China's threats following arms sales to
Taiwan are not new. The U.S. faced a similar situation in
January when China suspended military exchanges following the
announcement of a $6.4 billion arms package to Taiwan. In
addition, China froze military cooperation for the remainder of
the Bush administration after the White House notified Congress
in October 2008 of its plan to sell Taiwan $6.5 billion in
defense equipment.
In your view, does China actually have more to gain from
these military exchanges than we do? And if so, how serious are
their interests and how long would a cutoff in military ties
exist?
Mr. Campbell. I'll start with this and then I think my
colleague, Dr. Lavoy, might have something to suggest as well.
First of all, the military-to-military relationship, the
communication between the United States and China is in the
interest of both parties. It's in the interest of China and the
United States. We don't do this as a favor to China and they
don't do it as a favor or should not see it as a favor toward
the United States.
China is a growing military power, as they expand their
forces, as they deploy more abroad in the oceans and air
offshore China. They will come and they have come in contact
more with American forces. We are concerned, frankly, about the
potential for miscalculation and accident. We think
establishing rules of the road, understandings, predictability
about how we operate is one of the most important contributions
to the maintenance of peace and stability.
You remember back in 2001 at the beginning, at the outset
of the Bush administration, the accident that took place
between the Chinese fighter and the EP-3 American aircraft.
Such actions have the potential to disrupt and roil relations
in a way that is not in our interest and not in China's
interest. So it is our strong determination to see these ties
and communications go forward, but as a matter to try to
improve understanding between our two sides.
Mr. Johnson. I think I'm out of time, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Mr.
Faleomavaega is recognized.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair. There is a
perception that has been given to the extent that it seems that
we are not giving enough military assistance to Taiwan. And I
am glad just to hear that your statement, Dr. Campbell, that in
actuality during this administration that there has been more
assistance given in this regard with Taiwan's need for military
equipment to defend itself.
Can you provide that for the record and make that as a
comparative analysis with other times of administration,
because this is very, very important to me to know that in
actuality this administration is very, very firm in its
commitment to the defense of Taiwan.
Mr. Campbell. I must say thank you, Congressman. I would
simply that I do not believe that this is a partisan issue. In
fact, I believe that, generally speaking, over a range of
administrations you have seen close ties between the United
States and Taiwan. In fact, the areas that we've had the
greatest tension, frankly, were in the previous administration
when there were some difficulties between the two sides.
However, we have stood by our commitments----
Mr. Faleomavaega. I appreciate that, Dr. Campbell, but
please provide that for the record, just to make sure.
Dr. Lavoy, I think it's been said that there are 1600
missiles pointed toward Taiwan and I assume it's the latest
state-of-the-art capability that the Peoples Republic of China,
as far as militarily, with its capacity to shoot these
missiles. How long will it take for these missiles to land in
Taipei or any important cities in Taiwan, minutes, an hour?
Mr. Lavoy. Certainly, less than an hour, certainly minutes,
sir.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Will that give Taiwan with its current
capability militarily to respond in terms of defending itself
with 1600 missiles coming from everywhere?
Mr. Lavoy. Sir, we do look at Taiwan's defense needs in a
holistic way. There are a number of threats. There's some
missile threat, but I also talked about the air capability that
China is developing. Its naval undersea capability.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Here's my concern and I'm lacking time.
I'm sorry, Dr. Lavoy. It seems that it's more symbolic in terms
of our real commitment in helping defend Taiwan rather than
saying does it have the capability of withstanding any military
attack or aggression coming from the Peoples Republic of China.
That's my concern. And I would appreciate a more clear
definition in terms of what you think that we're capable of
doing.
Dr. Campbell, it's been known over years, despite all the
rhetoric that Taiwan and Peoples Republic of China have always
been confrontational, but in a public forum. And yet, they
conduct over $100 billion unofficial trade. This is one of the
ironies about dealing with Taiwan and its relationship with the
Peoples Republic of China, unofficial trade of over $100
billion. Can we add that to the actual amount of investments
that Taiwan currently makes in the Procurement Center
Representative, just like Japan, just like Hong Kong and other
major companies? Do we have an approximate estimate of the
total amount of investments that Taiwan has made in China?
Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Congressman. I don't want to
misstate here, so I want to make sure I get that into the
record, but I think your general point is absolutely clear. The
level of economic and commercial interaction is increasing
dramatically between Taiwan and China. There are places that
you can visit in China that are just filled with huge numbers
of Taiwan businessmen. They have little communities where they
have invested and they are engaged.
I think that that's the complexity of this issue, that
there are the enduring threats that this committee has focused
on, but there is also a picture of growing economic engagement,
commercial ties----
Mr. Faleomavaega. I'm sorry, Dr. Campbell, I don't mean to
interrupt because I know my time is up. The chairlady is very
important to this.
I make this observation. I've been to Taiwan several times,
having the opportunity to have met with both President Chen and
also President Ma and there is no question that the people and
the voters of Taiwan are in this threshold in terms of making
decision in their democracy in terms of what basic democracy--I
mean what future they have in terms of dealing--and correct me
if I'm wrong.
President Chen advocated the idea, even going to the United
Nations. They want Taiwan to be independent, which is a very
major decision with the people in contrast voted in favor of
President Ma who doesn't want to be under China, but
economically, culturally, educationally which is exactly what's
happening now and it seems that Beijing seems to be okay with
it. And my time is up.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr.
Faleomavaega.
Mr. Ted Poe, the vice chair on the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations is recognized.
Mr. Poe. I thank the chair for the time and thank you,
gentlemen, for being here and your expertise in this area.
Here's the way I see the situation. The Chinese dragon is
snorting the fire of intimidation against our ally, Taiwan. And
to defend itself from the Chinese dragon's evil intentions,
Taiwan defends itself with what I think are rusty swords, the
old outdated F-16s. And it appears that by intimidation the
U.S. has become somewhat timid under the Chinese dragon. The
Beijing Government doesn't want us to sell them new F-16 C/Ds
which happen to be built in Fort Worth, Texas, by the way.
It is in our national interest to help Taiwan and it's not
in our national interest to play Chamberlain and appease the
Chinese dragon. That's the way it comes across to me. Chinese
intentions of mischief are not limited to Taiwan. In the South
China Sea, the Beijing dragon has initiated confrontation with
the Philippine nation, the Japanese, Korea, and even Vietnam.
China is expanding its claims of the South China Sea in areas
that are international waters or actually belong to some other
nation.
So with this occurring and the expansion of the Chinese
dragon, what message are we sending not only to Taiwan, but to
Japan, other nations in the China Sea by failure to send the
best aircraft we have, the F-16 C/Ds to them? So I would just
like to hear from you that message that we're sending to all of
the above.
Mr. Campbell. Let me, if I can, Congressman, thank you very
much for your question. In a larger context, U.S.-Japan
relations have been extraordinarily important to this
administration. The United States by orders of magnitude
provided the most support to Japan after their tragic
earthquake and nuclear crisis. Japan understands that our
relationship is at the core of everything that we seek to do in
the Asian Pacific region.
If you look back to 2010, the important South China Sea
initiative that Secretary Clinton took at the ASEAN Regional
Forum. It made, no doubt, it made very clear that the United
States had a strategic interest in the maintenance of peace and
stability, the international use of sea lines of
communications, I think a very important and well-regarded
contribution to Asian Pacific security.
We've taken steps to strengthen all of our alliances and as
I suggested earlier, we're in the process of rebalancing
substantial commitments in the Middle East and South Asia, more
toward the Asia Pacific region. I would simply say as you look
at Taiwan, what you see is first of all, a flourishing
democracy that has achieved that status with the long-standing
support of the United States, a very strong relationship with
the United States, trade and economic engagement greater than
that of India. We'd like to do more, I think has been
underscored, but also at its bedrock an extraordinarily robust
military relationship. And we've underscored clearly the steps
that we have taken, not just in the provision of hardware, but
broad-based engagement that we call software.
Mr. Poe. Let me reclaim my time, Dr. Campbell. I only have
a little bit of time. Let me center in on the expansion of the
Chinese influence in the South China Sea with its
confrontations recently with Vietnam and their oil exploration.
Some of the folks that I've talked to when I was in the area
said that China claims the whole area because it is named the
South China Sea. Can you help us out a little bit about what
you see the intentions of China in that area?
Mr. Campbell. I'm cognizant of the gavel of the chairwoman.
I'll never get this through this in 40 seconds. I will simply
say that the United States has a strategic interest in all
issues be handled peacefully. We believe that issues associated
with sovereignty and boundaries should flow from the provisions
laid out in the law of the sea. We support negotiations. We
reject coercion and we have been in close consultation with all
of our allies and friends in the region about the critical
issue in the South China Sea. And I do agree with you that's
it's an important issue that requires American leadership going
forward.
Mr. Poe. Thank you. I'll yield back the 2 seconds, Madam
Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Now Judge Poe was a very
tough Judge in Texas and I'm a tough chairman. So we have that
in common.
Mr. Rivera, my Florida colleague, is recognized.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you very much and we greatly appreciate
that toughness. It's important. I share the concerns expressed
earlier by many of my colleagues with respect to the signals or
messages that are being sent by this latest decision not to
support our greatest ally in the region, Taiwan, with respect
to the F-16s. We have no greater ally than Taiwan, certainly in
Asia, just as we have no greater ally in the Middle East than
Israel. And we should always do everything possible to avert
sending any type of mixed message or disturbing message that
perhaps we are turning our backs on our allies in an effort to
appease our enemies. I know some folks like to sugar coat the
terms in describing China as a rival or competitor. But the
fact is Communist China is an enemy of democracy. Communist
China is an enemy of freedom. Communist China is an enemy of
human rights and civil liberties. So we can spend a lot of time
talking about how Taiwan is a flourishing democracy and I
certainly agree and our great ally in that region, but we also
need to say it like it is with respect to Communist China.
So with that as a background as to my perspective, I have
just one question for Secretary Campbell, one question for
Secretary Lavoy and I'll start with Secretary Lavoy. Other than
upgrading the old F-16s, what can this administration do to
enhance Taiwan's air defense capability considering the threat
that Communist China poses?
Mr. Lavoy. Thank you very much for that question. Let me
just make three very quick points in light of the diminishing
time. First of all, this administration is committed to the
defense of Taiwan and we have the strongest possible commitment
to Taiwan. Taiwan does matter.
Secondly, this arms package that was just announced to
Congress 2 weeks ago does make sense. The core of Taiwan's air
defense or air force is 145 F-16s. This extension, this
retrofit----
Mr. Rivera. Is there anything else we can do?
Mr. Lavoy. We can do other things and we are doing other
things. That was my third point. We are consulting with Taiwan
on a full range of capabilities so that they're aware of the
threat and they can undertake the defensive preparations. This
might involve future arms transfers by this administration----
Mr. Rivera. Future arms transfers such as?
Mr. Lavoy. Well, I don't want to speculate on future ones.
This is something that we're consulting with Taiwan authorities
on and we are considering it actively.
Mr. Rivera. For Secretary Campbell, in that same vein, what
can this administration do to enhance Taiwan's diplomatic
standing in the world, in encouraging and developing multi-
lateral efforts? What can we do to help our greatest friend in
the region?
Mr. Campbell. Thanks. It's a good question. I think it is
the consistent policy of the United States to encourage Taiwan
to play an appropriate role in a variety of international
organizations. They've most recently been playing a role in the
World Health Organization, given the potential for an outbreak
of disease that could be devastating in Asia. We've seen
certain flus in the past. Taiwan has some unique capabilities
to bring to bear and I think that cooperation has been
significant.
The region has also been struck by a lot of very severe
weather patterns and also earthquakes. Greater preparedness
opportunities for Taiwan to participate in this regard I think
is important. It is also the case that frankly simply the
example of Taiwan, 25 years ago, Taiwan was a very brutal,
authoritarian regime. It's now one of the most flourishing,
exciting democracies in Asia. I think that example, also the
example of a country, a place that's growing at nearly 8
percent a year, tremendous vitality, lots of interchanges
between Taiwan and China and with the United States and other
countries in the region. It's actually flourishing and it's
flourishing largely because of a strong relationship that we
have sustained with Taiwan over decades and that we will
continue to sustain going forward.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rivera,
and another wonderful Florida colleague, Mr. Bilirakis, a/k/a
Ray.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate that.
One of these days, we'll explain that.
There's a consensus among military analysts that the Taiwan
Strait remains one of the most dangerous geo-political
flashpoints in the world today. I'm therefore baffled at the
President's appointee for the Director of American Institute in
Taiwan who after all functions as a de facto U.S. Ambassador of
Taipei need not pass through the Senate confirmation process as
all other diplomatic appointees do. Why are the qualifications
and perspectives of our Ambassadors to Grenada and Barbados
subjected to more congressional scrutiny than our main
representative to a key democratic ally with whom we share a
broad, economic, and strategic interest? It is clearly in the
U.S. interest, in my opinion, to have an AIT director confirmed
by the Senate just like any other Ambassador.
Wouldn't it be prudent to start the process of putting into
law that the AIT director in Taipei be confirmed by the Senate,
for the panel, please?
Mr. Campbell. Frankly, it's not for me, Congressman, for me
to comment on that. The practice is, as you know, we have an
unofficial relationship with Taiwan. The representative is
chosen very carefully. We have a long, distinguished record of
people who have served in that capacity, often with extensive
experience in Asia, deep language capabilities, and strong
commitment to maintaining that relationship between the United
States and Taiwan.
Our current AIT chairman, Bill Stanton, one of the most
effective American diplomats for decades, has done a great job
building the relationship between the United States and Taiwan.
There have been many who have preceded him and there will be
many that follow him. The issues associated with Senate
confirmations really resides in some other capacity, not mine.
Mr. Bilirakis. Sir.
Mr. Lavoy. I'm from the Department of Defense and I would
certainly defer to the State Department on that issue.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. I yield back, Madam
Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Thank you to
all of our members, thank you to the audience, and most
especially to an excellent set of panelists this morning. We
appreciate your willingness to appear before us and the
conclusion is that Taiwan matters a great deal, I know to you
and most especially here to the Members of Congress and our
committee. And with that, our committee is adjourned. Thank
you, gentlemen.
[Whereupon at 11:55 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.