The resolution ended by calling for a declaration of war on the PRC. The chamber was so quiet that when the Clerk of the House finished speaking and shut off his mike the spectators in the House Visitors’ Galley could hear his papers rustling as he tapped them back into a tidy pile.
By eleven o’clock it became clear there were four basic lines of argument, two for, and two against the declaration of war on China. The moderate opposition to the resolution was summed up by a powerful, pro-trade committee chairman:
“Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, I rise in opposition to the resolution. This is madness! This is not some academic exercise! We are debating whether or not to go to war against one of our largest trading partners and the world’s most populous nation! China is not our enemy. They have no designs on U.S. territory or world conquest. They simply want to be able to make their ancient and proud nation whole again. Let us not stand in their way. Our relations with China are far more important than to squander them on the shoals of a small and insignificant island. Please, please, please, listen to me! We must not, we cannot, risk war with a major power over territory that even most of us believe belongs to them!
“In addition, I hope the President will ignore the rising chorus of unemployed cold warriors and armchair generals urging him to strike out against China. It is awfully easy to order air strikes on China from the comfort of your living room; it is a whole lot harder when you have to bear the full responsibility of such an action as Commander in Chief. Let us support the President, but let us not goad him into action that may be unwise or unsuccessful. Let us not prematurely set the President’s path so that his only choices become failure and certain folly!”
The Member finished his speech to a smattering of applause. His convictions were genuine, although some of his opponents didn’t think so and were prepared to use his record of campaign contributions against him (he represented a district where the largest employer was an aerospace company with billions of dollars of exports to China at stake).
Another point of view was expressed by a Member of the House’s bloc of traditional pacifists:
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to oppose my Democratic leadership and the President in this matter, but I believe the resolution is not in the national interest and, as a matter of principle, I am compelled to dissent. America can no longer be the world’s policeman. We must come home. It is our own serious economic problems here at home that deserve our attention and our resources.
“While I agree with the resolution’s characterization of the reprehensible actions of the People’s Republic of China and the resolution’s approval of severe economic sanctions against China and the freezing of Chinese and Taiwanese assets in the United States, can anyone honestly believe that our military would be on the shores of Taiwan today except for the Pentagon’s deep-seated and irrational Cold War hatred of the Chinese Communist Party?
“There is simply no threat to the American homeland. We are there plainly and simply because old Cold Warriors hate China. And, I believe, no American life is worth sacrificing for this outmoded hatred. Especially since the Asian powers with the most to lose are our economic competitors.
“I am exceedingly concerned that the passage of this resolution will provide a fig leaf of a congressional public relations mandate for the President to accentuate a military resolution of this crisis, rather than sustained diplomatic negotiations with all concerned parties. Before this is over we will put hundreds of thousands of our uniformed military personnel in harm’s way. We have an obligation to them, a moral obligation, and an obligation to the American people and people in Asia to achieve a just resolution of this crisis without recourse to further bloodshed and devastation.”
The arguments in favor of the resolution were also in two camps: Members who believed China was a looming military and economic threat to America and another group who were perennially disgusted with China’s human rights violations and exploitation of low-cost labor (the later motivated, more often than not, by powerful organized labor interests). Both camps drew on the fact that Taiwan was a democracy while China was not.
With only ten minutes remaining on the clock for the pro-resolution side, a big-labor Democrat from the heart of Chicago rose to speak:
“Mr. Speaker. The near-war in which we find ourselves is a classic case of bad policy choices coming back to haunt us. China has a long history of aggression in the region, ask Tibet, ask South Korea, ask the Philippines, ask Vietnam. They have an abysmal human rights record, and have violated international conventions against the proliferation of missile technology and nuclear weapons. Despite that, both Republican and Democratic administrations over the decades of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s increasingly tilted United States policy toward China. Their bad judgment was compounded, of course, by their failure to develop a consistent fair trade and human rights policy with respect to China.
“This coddling of China’s dictators has only served to embolden them to action against a tiny and vibrant democracy. I have visited both Taiwan and China. Let me tell you this: Taiwan is governed by its people — a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The People’s Republic of China is governed by a bunch of corrupt old Communist Party thugs.
“Some of you today have blamed Taiwan for initiating this crisis, for effectively declaring independence. Shame! Shame on you! You and your elitist ilk in the State Department fret about hot heads in Taiwan — as if a government freely elected can ignore the will of its people! If the government in Taipei didn’t declare Taiwan’s independence it would have deserved to be thrown on the street. And I’m sure many of the same people who now tut-tut their moves towards independence would have condemned them for being less than democratic had they ignored the will of the people. Well, you can’t have it both ways: either Taiwan and its people are free, free to choose their own path and deserving of our support, or they’re not, in which case they are no better than the butchers of Beijing who now rule over one-fifth of the world’s population and lust after more!
“I support the resolution and I support freedom for the people of Taiwan and the people of China!”
At his last sentence, he pounded the podium in the midst of thunderous applause.
The last Member to speak for the pro-resolution side, a conservative Member of the House Armed Services Committee rose:
“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 745 and urge its adoption. This resolution is the result of intense and urgent deliberations between the majority, the other side of the aisle, and the administration on what must be the most important of the shared powers of Congress and the executive — the issue of war.
“This resolution was crafted by members of the committee in close consultation with the highest representatives of the administration and represents that which can be achieved when there is consensus among Americans with regard to our principles of constitutional democracy and that our traditional role of opposing illegal and naked aggression, be it against Poland in 1939, Pearl Harbor in 1941, Kuwait in 1990, or Taiwan today.
“Simply stated, House Joint Resolution 745 affirms and congratulates the President on the actions he has taken in the past two days with respect to the current situation in and around Taiwan as a result of the Chinese invasion. Congress should indicate that it will stand behind the President’s stated objectives to preserve democracy on Taiwan and to protect American lives and interests. The explicit use of chemical and nuclear warfare is a tactic worthy of Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler, and a blatant violation of all norms of international law and civilized behavior. The activities of the Communist Chinese occupying forces in Taiwan must also be a focus of the condemnation of the world…” He continued, citing historical precedents and the urgency of the situation.