« 이전계속 »
NORMALIZATION OF RELATIONS WITH THE PEOPLE'S
REPUBLIC OF CHINA: PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
SEPTEMBER 20, 21, 28, 29; OCTOBER 11, AND 13, 1977
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1977
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI, Wisconsin, Chairman L. H. FOUNTAIN, North Carolina
WILLIAM S. BROOMFIELD, Michigan DANTE B. FASCELL, Florida
EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois CHARLES C. DIGGS, JR., Michigan
PAUL FINDLEY, Illinois ROBERT N. C. NIX, Pennsylvania
JOHN B. BUCHANAN, JR., Alabama DONALD M. FRASER, Minnesota
J. HERBERT BURKE, Florida BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL, New York CHARLES W. WHALEN, JR., Ohio LEE H. HAMILTON, Indiana
LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas LESTER L. WOLFF, New York
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York JONATHAN B. BINGHAM, New York TENNYSON GUYER, Ohio GUS YATRON, Pennsylvania
ROBERT J. LAGOMARSINO, California MICHAEL HARRINGTON, Massachusetts WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania LEO J. RYAN, California
SHIRLEY N. PETTIS, California
JOHN J. BRADY, JR., Chief of Staff
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS
LESTER L. WOLFF, New York, Chairman L. H. FOUNTAIN, North Carolina
J. HERBERT BURKE, Florida
TENNYSON GUYER, Ohio
EDWARD J. PALMER, Subcommittee Staff Director
Jon D. HOLSTINE, Minority Staff Consultant
ARLENE M. ATWATER, Staff Assistant
August 4, 1977, to report on 1975–76 hearings on “United States-So-
amines Wolff Plan for Taiwan Security” as reported in FBIS, Au-
of Massachusetts, "Toward Normal and Enduring U.S. Relations
INTRODUCTION AND INTERIM REPORT BY HON. LESTER
L. WOLFF, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS
During the closing months of 1976 and into the summer of 1977, the issue of normalization of relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China came increasingly before the Congress and the American people.
An informal but on-going China debate, which was reflected in hearings by the predecessor to this subcommittee (the Future Foreign Policy Subcommittee) in 1975–76, gradually moved beyond the question of whether or not to normalize, and began to coalesce into the thought, as it was expressed by Prof. Victor Li to us this fall, that, "The issue is no longer whether to normalize, but when and how.”
Several people and events have helped fuel this consensus: President Carter and former President Ford, during their campaign, endorsed the Shanghai Communique (see appendix) as setting the spirit, if not the course, favoring normalization between the two nations.
The change of leadership in China, and a possible trend away from internal disruption, offered the possibility of negotiations with the PRC leadership-particularly regarding the future of Taiwan and the Mutual Defense Treaty (see appendix)—free from some of the constraining factors of the past.
Initiatives in our country, such as the call for prompt normalization by Senator Edward Kennedy (see appendix) helped set the stage for Secretary Vance's mission to Peking.
During the summer, the staff of the subcommittee was engaged in organizing the present set of six hearings and inviting the 22 witnesses whose expert testimony addresses many, if not all, of the major questions raised by the normalization issue.
The hearings were developed and carried out with this overriding principle in mind; the stated policy of the last three administrations has been to normalize relations with the People's Republic of China. The task of the subcommittee, therefore, was and remains to examine as closely as possible the practical implications of a policy of normalizing with the PRC.
The hearings emphasized that the issue of normalization interacts with our policy throughout Asia, as well as with the Soviet Union; it is an issue in which the Congress and the American people must have all the information they need to assess whether initiatives and advances may be made by the administration.
It is my hope that these hearings, when complete, will help the Congress and the American people avoid the divisive sort of debate presently taking place on the Panama Canal, where a fait accompli of sorts has created uncertainty and mistrust.