Judging from his public statements and his record in Congress, Democratic Party candidate Senator John Kerry, if elected president, would likely shift US foreign policy toward a pro-China, anti-Taiwan stance.
What is the evidence?
Kerry has strongly propounded a policy of avoiding conflict. He voted against the Gulf War in 1991 and against funding US forces in Iraq. He speaks of being the "peace president."
Regarding Taiwan, he says the US has no obligation to defend the island. He has also been critical of US arms sales to Taiwan -- both in the past and for weapons currently in the pipeline.
Worse for Taiwan, Kerry states that Taiwan is part of China and backs the "one China" principle. The "one China" principle is officially US policy, but most US leaders who support it link it to the principle of a peaceful resolution of the "Taiwan issue." Kerry doesn't mention this.
Finally, the Democratic platform, Kerry's platform, does not mention the Taiwan Relations Act. The TRA, passed by Congress in 1979, treats Taiwan as a nation-state and promises US arms sales and protection. Kerry apparently does not favor this law.
Kerry has praised Taiwan's democratization, but that seems pro forma and even disingenuous. If Taiwan does not survive, its democracy will no longer be relevant to its citizens or as a model to other countries (which it is).
For all of this, Kerry's stance on Taiwan has evoked talk in Washington of a "fourth communique" that would declare that the US officially opposes an independent Taiwan and will work with China toward its unification with Taiwan.
There has even been mention among Kerry's supporters that the US might allow China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) to seize one of the Taiwan-governed islands near China or otherwise threaten Taiwan, with Washington acquiescing, in order to send a signal to President Chen Shiu-bian (
For all of this, Chinese leaders in Beijing are delighted with Kerry's positions. China's official newspaper, People's Daily, has endorsed Kerry for president. This is unusual; China has in the past supported incumbents.
What is the logic in Kerry's anti-Taiwan (and pro-China) policy? Certainly it is not that China is popular in the US and Taiwan isn't.
Perhaps it is because President George W. Bush is seen as pro-Taiwan. In fact, this is one of the hallmarks of the Bush administration. Kerry may think he must take a different stance to be noticed and/or give voters a choice.
Alternatively, Kerry advisors may anticipate a blow-up in US-China relations. Since the March presidential election in Taiwan, Washington and Beijing have been seriously at odds over Taiwan, and there has been growing tension in their relations.
Kerry's China/Taiwan policy seems to fit his worldview. Kerry sees Europe as playing a bigger role in international affairs. He definitely opposes the neoconservative's unilateral view of the world.
He envisions a multipolar world, which Europe advocates -- and China favors (when it is at odds with the US) and could help to engineer.
On the less principled side, it has been reported that Kerry has received campaign funds from China. If he has chosen to follow former president Bill Clinton's model in winning a presidential election (and Clinton people are now much closer to Kerry), then there may be something to this money angle.
Kerry also has some big time financial backers that have large and arguably insecure investments in China. George Soros, who has pledged millions of dollars to defeat Bush, has a major stake in a Chinese airline that will prosper (or not) depending on Chinese government regulation.
In erecting a pro-China, anti-Taiwan policy, candidate Kerry is obviously taking some risks.
Taiwan is a democracy; China is an authoritarian communist country. Americans prefer democracies. China also threatens the US, economically and militarily. Furthermore, Taiwan's viability is important to the US if America is to remain an Asian power.
And Americans like the under-dog. Taiwan is the smallest country in Northeast Asia. China is the biggest. Taiwan has survived because of its will to do so and US help.
Finally, Kerry is going against a US China/Taiwan policy that has worked and has kept the peace in the area.
Admittedly it is now being challenged, but is there a good alternative? Few would say that selling out Taiwan to a communist dictatorship is an acceptable solution.
Kerry's policy then seems to be an election gambit. It appears to be one that would be justified only if some of the less wholesome things said about Kerry's motives are true or if he is desperate, or both.
John Copper is the Stanley J. Buckman Professor of International Studies at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee. He is the author of a number of books on China and Taiwan. He can be reached at copper@rhodes.edu.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS