Editing 79-01-A1 (section)

=== Transcript ===
If one word could describe the mood of the [[wikipedia:Carter_Administration|Carter administration]], most
American news media and a lot of American businessmen, on the opening
of formal diplomatic relations with [[wikipedia:Beijing|Peking]] on New Year's day, I'd say
the word is "euphoria".

Officials of the administration have been patting themselves on the back
in interviews; a lot of reporters and commentators have taken the
Administration's words at face value; and many a businessman has gushed about
the nearly one billion customers he expects to find on the mainland of
China.

[[wikipedia:Joint_Communiqué_on_the_Establishment_of_Diplomatic_Relations|Mr. Carter's sudden move]] may not provide all the benefits we've been
hearing so much about. In fact, it may produce some unhappy results
in the long run, including the ultimate loss of freedom for [[wikipedia:Taiwan|Taiwan]]'s
17 million people.

The question hasn't been whether we should be friendly toward the Chinese
people on the mainland. No, the question brought into sharp focus by
Mr. Carter's move is the freedom and security of the people of Taiwan.
America has formally cast an ally adrift with only vague promises about
future relations and sales of defense equipment -- mostly based upon the
hope that Peking will keep its hands off.

We can't undo the President's switching of formal relations -- that's
within his constitutional power. But does our mutual defense treaty
with Taiwan need to be scrapped? [[wikipedia:Hungdah_Chiu|Dr. Hungdah Chiu]], a professor of
international law at the University of Maryland, says no. In an article
in the Christian Science Monitor which appeared the day before Mr. Carter's
surprise announcement, Dr. Chiu describes as a "misconception" the idea
that recognition of Peking automatically should result in termination
of our mutual defense treaty with the Republic of China on Taiwan.

He says, "The Theory ... is that this treaty was concluded with the R.O.C.
as the government of the state of China. Once the U.S. recognizes the
(Peking) government as the government of China, it would necessarily
derecognize the R.O.C. and deny that it has any international legal
personality, including the capacity to maintain existing treaties."

But, he adds, "This theory would make sense only if the U.S. government has
in fact and in law treated the R.O.C. government as the only legal
government in China since 1949. But this is not the case. Article VI
of the ... defense treaty clearly provides that 'the terms 'territorial'
and 'territories' shall mean in respect of the Republic of China,
Taiwan and the [[wikipedia:Penghu|Pescadores]],' thus limiting U.S. recognition of the R.O.C.
government to the area under the latter's effective control .

Dr. Chiu says, "since 1958 I have not seen a single U.S. foreign policy
document which asserts that the R.O.C. is the only legal government in China."

That's an article I hope every member of the Senate reads. One of
the dangers of sudden action in foreign affairs is that not all aspects
of the situation can be thought out. Taiwan's security is in this category,
but Dr. Chiu may have pointed a way for us to save the treaty which undergirds
Taiwan's security -- and thus its prosperity and freedom -- despite the new
relationship with Peking. Since we have never before broken a treaty without
cause, this would sa.ve us some of our honor, too.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">