In response to the proposed legislation, H. Cong Res 73, by Rep. Thomas Tancredo and others (Rep Dan Burton [IN-5], Rep Steve Chabot [OH-1], Rep Marilyn N. Musgrave [CO-4], Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46], Rep Mark E. Souder [IN-3], and Rep Edolphus Towns [NY-10]), the One China Committee sent out a rebuttal on February 22, 2007 which is reproduced below:
We are disturbed and disappointed by your proposed legislation, H.Con.Res. 73, "[e]xpressing the sense of Congress that the United States should resume normal diplomatic relations with Taiwan (the Republic of China), and for other purposes."
As a law-maker, you must be well versed in our Constitution. Our Constitution vests in the Executive Branchy the sole right to conduct diplomatic relations with foreign nations. In a leading case, United States v. Curtiss -Wright Export Corp, 299 U.S. 304 (1936), Justice Sutherland in a unanimous opinion stated: "The President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation . . . . As Marshall said in his great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives, 'the President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and has sole representative with foreign nations.'" Your proposed legislation which intends "to formally recognize Taiwan" invades the Executive Branch's authority and prerogative and is a violation of our Constitution.
Taiwan is an integral part of China. In an interview with Phoenix TV, former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell stated on October 25, 2004: "our policy is clear. There is only one China. Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy. And it is a policy that has allowed Taiwan to develop a very vibrant democratic system, a market economic system and provided great benefits to the people of Taiwan. And that is why we think it is a policy that should be respected and should remain in force and will remain in force, on the American side, it is our policy that clearly rests on Three Communiqués. To repeat it one more time: we do not support an independence movement in Taiwan."
The Cairo Declaration of 1943 explicitly stated that Formosa (Taiwan) should be restored to China. It was reiterated at Potsdam in 1945 and was accepted in Japan's surrender instrument on September 2, 1945. Article IV of the Treaty of Peace between China and Japan of 1952 provides "all treaties, conventions and agreements concluded before December 9, 1941 between China and Japan have become null and void as a consequence of the war." Taiwan was ceded to Japan by China in 1895 by the Treaty of Shimonoseki. As stated in the Peace Treaty, the Treaty of Shimonoseki became null and void. Accordingly, Taiwan had been returned to China as a matter of law.
The present status of Taiwan regime which occupies a tiny part of Chinese territory including Taiwan, and Quemoy and Matsu islands of Fujian Province is the result of the civil war between the Communists and the Nationalists. There are two political entities in a divided nation, but not two Chinas.
According to the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972, reaffirmed in 1979, "[t]he United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position." The 1982 Communiqué further elaborates "that the United States of America recognized the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China, and it acknowledged the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China." These Communiqués. were intended to be legal binding documents, like treaties. And treaties are the supreme law of the land.
Your proposed legislation is oblivious to the historical and legal status of Taiwan and is an irresponsible stir-up of the otherwise peaceful status quo across the Taiwan Strait. It is, to reiterate, an unconstitutional invasion of the Executive power.
We respectfully request that your proposed legislation, H.Con.Res. 73, be withdrawn.