Dear Senator Kerry: There are more than 600,000 US citizens of Taiwanese heritage. In the November presidential election, Taiwanese Americans will vote for the candidate who firmly supports democratic Taiwan.
During the Iowa caucus you said the US should push for a "one China, two systems" for Taiwan. While Beijing promised Hong Kong 50 years of democracy under "one country, two systems," it has already reneged on that pledge. The Taiwan Relations Act says it is the objective of the US to preserve and enhance the human rights of the people of Taiwan. How can we in good conscience push the free people of Taiwan into servitude under the Chinese Communist Party's repressive rule?
We hope you simply misspoke when you suggested "one China, two systems" for Taiwan's future. The proposal is contrary to US policy toward Taiwan, which has been carefully developed by six former US presidents. But we have not seen any retraction of your Iowa statement.
The Democratic Party's platform committee came up with a draft during a recent meeting in Florida. In a one-sentence reference to Taiwan, the draft platform states: "We are committed to a `one China' policy, and will continue to support a peaceful resolution of cross-Straits [sic] issues that is consistent with the wishes and best interests of the Taiwanese people."
Missing conspicuously from the draft is any affirmation of US commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act. In contrast, the 2000 Democratic Party platform said: "A Gore administration will fulfill its responsibilities under the Taiwan Relations Act ... We support resolution of cross-Straits [sic] issues that is both peaceful and consistent with the wishes of the people of Taiwan."
The failure to affirm the Taiwan Relations Act, in combination with your suggestion of a Hong Kong-style future for Taiwan, could lead to undesirable consequences for both the US and Taiwan. Beijing could decide to actively intercede in the November election on your behalf, since your position on Taiwan appears to be much more accommodating to China's declared intent to annex Taiwan, by force if necessary. Foreign intervention in the US presidential election is not only illegal, it would be harmful to US national interests. No US president should be beholden to a foreign power because of its help in winning the White House.
The People's Liberation Army (PLA) has been actively developing the capacity to invade Taiwan with a multi-prong blitzkrieg with the aim of occupying the island before the US can react. At present, the PLA is conducting a large-scale joint-force exercise simulating an invasion of Taiwan on China's southeastern coast. Tensions across the Taiwan Strait are high. If China perceives that a Kerry administration will not honor America's commitment to help defend Taiwan, China could well decide to launch an all-out military invasion against Taiwan while US forces are still preoccupied with intractable problems in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In 2000, the Republican platform strongly affirmed the Taiwan Relations Act as follows: "We deny the right of Beijing to impose its rule on the free Taiwanese people. All issues regarding Taiwan's future must be resolved peacefully and must be agreed to by the people of Taiwan. [If China attacked Taiwan,] the United States will respond appropriately in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act. America will help Taiwan defend itself."
We strongly recommend that you instruct the Platform Committee to insert language affirming the Taiwan Relations Act into this year's platform of the Democratic Party.
We look forward to hearing your view on this matter.
Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS