Promote Freedom In China By Protecting It In Taiwan

(Washington, D.C.): Among the many issues to be addressed by the House of Representatives in
the course of tomorrow’s extraordinary 12-hour session on the Policy for Freedom in China
legislation, arguably one of the most important is H.R. 2386, “The United States-Taiwan Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Cooperation Act.” After all, this bill promises to address the single
greatest threat to such freedom as now exists in any part of China: the PRC’s expanding capability
to use ballistic missile-borne weapons of mass destruction to coerce — and possibly to devastate —
democratic Taiwan.

‘This is No Drill’

H.R. 2386 takes note in its “Findings” section of just how real this threat is. It calls to mind the
“temporary, but de facto, blockade of both the international shipping lanes of the Taiwan Strait
and the international airspace around Taiwan” by firing several “advanced, nuclear-capable M-9
ballistic missiles” into the waters just offshore of the island’s two main ports, Keelung and
Kaohsiung. As the bill notes: “The[se] actions of the People’s Liberation Army in such close
proximity to Taiwan were deliberate attempts to disrupt Taiwan’s social and economic stability
and were carried out as attempts to intimidate the people of Taiwan during the period leading up
to Taiwan’s historic first democratic presidential election.” Worse yet, as H.R. 2386 reminds us,
“The People’s Republic of China [refuses] to renounce the use of force to determine the future of
Taiwan.”

In response, the U.S.-Taiwan ABM Defense Cooperation Act calls for the “early development
and deployment of an effective United States theater missile defense system to the Asia-Pacific region and the adjustment of U.S. policy to include Taiwan, including the Penghu
Islands, Kinmen and Matsu under the protection of such defense system.” The bill also
declares that “it is in the national interest of the United States that Taiwan be included in any
effort at ballistic missile defense cooperation, networking or interoperability with friendly and
allied nations in the Asia-Pacific region.”

The bill mandates a study of, among other things, “any existing U.S. missile defense system that
could be transferred to Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act in order to allow
Taiwan to provide for its self-defense against limited missile attacks.” It concludes with a call for
President Clinton to “make clear to the leadership of the People’s Republic of China the American
people’s firm commitment to security and democracy for the people of Taiwan….The United
States fully expects that the resolution of security issues on both sides of the Taiwan Strait will be
resolved by peaceful means.”

The Bottom Line

H.R. 2386 represents a key ingredient of the package of initiatives being spearheaded under the
rubric of a Policy for Freedom in China by Rep. Chris Cox — chairman of the House Republican
Policy Committee and recipient last week of the Center for Security Policy’s prestigious 1997
Keeper of the Flame Award.⁽¹⁾ This measure should enjoy the strong support of all legislators
who appreciate the invitation to disaster that a posture of defenselessness represents in the
face of the large and steadily worsening threat posed by Chinese ballistic missile forces.

The Center for Security Policy believes, moreover, that the obvious choice for providing the
sort of effective wide-area theater missile defense for Taiwan called for by H.R. 2386 would
be something not specifically identified in the bill: the Navy’s “AEGIS Option.” This
multi-faceted program — involving shorter- and longer-range interceptor systems — could enable
the roughly $50 billion investment already made in U.S. fleet air defense assets to serve as the
infrastructure for deploying sea-based, global anti-missile defenses. According to a blue-ribbon
commission sponsored last year by the Heritage Foundation, for a total additional outlay of just
$2-3 billion over the next five years, this system could be brought on line to provide effective
defenses not only for the Asian-Pacific, European and Middle Eastern “theaters”; if the will exists
to do so, the “AEGIS Option” could also begin to provide anti-missile protection for the North
American one, as well.⁽²⁾

Among those legislators who have appreciated the potential of the “AEGIS Option” for
addressing emerging ballistic missile threats are Representatives Bob Livingston (R-LA) and
Owen Pickett (D-VA) and former Representatives/now Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Jim
Inhofe (R-OK). They are to be commended for their leadership in this field and their colleagues
in the House are to be encouraged to follow it.

– 30 –

1. See the Center’s Press Release entitled Chris Cox: Keeper of the Flame (No. 97-P 162, 31
October 1997).

2. For additional information on this option, see the reports issued in 1995 and 1996 by the
Heritage Foundation’s blue-ribbon Missile Defense Study Team (Team B) entitled Defending
America: A Near- And Long-Term Plan to Deploy Missile Defenses and the Center for Security
Policy’s Decision Briefs entitled A Day That Will Live In Infamy: 25th Anniversary Of The
A.B.M. Treaty’s Ratification Should Be Its Last (No. 97-D 144, 29 September 1997), Jim
Woolsey Helps U.S. Reach ‘Critical Mass’ on Missile Defense (No. 97-D 74, 2 June 1997) and
Unhappy Birthday: Twenty-Five Years of the A.B.M. Treaty Is Enough: Sen. Kyl Points Way
To Begin Defending America (No. 97-D 72, 23 May 1997).