If elected President in November, what would Al Gore's policy towards Taiwan be like?
During a debate last January, Al Gore said "In China, we need to demand respect for human rights and religious freedom. But bringing China into the community of nations, fostering peace between China and Taiwan, and engaging them in a way that furthers our values, I think that's in our interest."
In another debate in December 1999, he supported strategic ambiguity: "... we don't want to embolden ... the hard-liners on either side of the Taiwan Strait to take some rash action."
Mouthing the mantra of peaceful resolution does not amount to a serious policy designed to deter the looming military conflict in the Taiwan Strait.
Gore's concern that Taipei may take rash action is misplaced. Beijing is the one incessantly threatening military action against democratic Taiwan.
Amid the presidential campaign, it is doubtful Gore's foreign policy advisers will have the time to reappraise US policy toward Taiwan.
At this stage, it is impossible to tell what Gore's position would be regarding Taiwan's ultimate status. Still it is useful to gather some relevant information now so we may better cope with a Gore administration.
On June 14, the American Enterprise Institute held a panel discussion on "How Would Al Gore Govern in Foreign Policy?" The main panelists were Leon Fuerth, National Security Adviser to the Vice President; former Congressman Steve Solarz; former CIA Director James Woolsey and former Senator Dale Bumpers of Arkansas, all people who know Gore well and who are friendly with him.
The panelists brought up a number of Gore's strengths. He has the "ability to spot things coming over the horizon," for example global warming. Gore will be more hawkish. He was one of six Democratic Senators who voted for Desert Storm.
In foreign policy and national security, a Gore administration will be more focused on long-term objectives and substance, as opposed to short-term political and public relations considerations as under Clinton.
Gore is said to be interested in foreign policy and would "immerse himself in the agenda more deeply." The fact that Solarz, who is familiar with Taiwan issues, is close to him can also be a positive factor.
On the negative side, Al Gore's foreign policy would be very similar to Clinton's.
Gore appears complacent about the growing military and strategic alliance between China and Russia. Gore supported Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China and opposed the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act.
His statement that he supports the "reformers" in Beijing portrays a potentially dangerous naivete regarding the nature and goals of the Chinese Communist Party.
One thing appears certain. As president, Gore is more likely to place US national interests ahead of personal political calculations in making foreign policy and national security decisions.
The Formosan Association for Public Affairs, a Taiwanese American lobbying group, has already contacted the Gore campaign staff to seek support for Taiwan.
It behooves A-bian's
Li Thian-hok is a board member at large of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs and chair of the diplomacy committee of World United Formosans for Independence (USA).
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath