In his foreign policy speech at the Reagan Library last November, Governor George W. Bush emphasized America's commitment to human rights. With respect to Taiwan, he gave the following statements:
"We must show American power and purpose in strong support for our Asian friends and allies. This means honoring our promises to the people of Taiwan. We do not deny there is `one China,' but we deny the right of Beijing to impose their rule on a free people. As I said before, we will help Taiwan to defend itself."
The Republican campaign platform favored Taiwan's accession to the WTO, Taiwan's participation in the WHO and other multilateral institutions, and sale of defensive arms to enhance Taiwan's security. The platform reiterated Bush's policy on Taiwan. "All issues regarding Taiwan's future must be resolved peacefully and must be agreeable to the people of Taiwan. If China violates these principles and attacks Taiwan, then the United States will respond appropriately in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act."
One may reasonably question whether campaign rhetoric will actually translate into policy after Bush is elected. Both Reagan and Clinton adopted a more pro-China policy after they took over the presidency.
Nevertheless, there are several reasons to be sanguine about the prospects of stronger support for Taipei by a Bush administration. First, the Bush campaign stresses the need to tell the truth, to distinguish itself from the deliberate dissembling of the Clinton-Gore era.
Governor Bush also appears to be a man of integrity who prides himself in talking straight to the people. Second, Governor Bush genuinely believes that American values must be part of America's foreign policy. So long as Taiwan is committed to further perfection of its democracy and to defend the freedom of the 23 million people of Taiwan, a Bush administration is unlikely to acquiesce to a conquest of Taiwan by the People's Liberation Army.
Third, unlike the Clinton administration, Bush and his team of advisors share a long-range, strategic goal "to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power." (Remembering the Future, by Paul Wolfowitz). For the above reasons, a Bush administration would bolster the security alliance with Japan and South Korea and seek a closer relationship with India. It will have a greater appreciation of Taiwan's strategic value in maintaining peace and stability in East Asia. Lastly, Bush hopes to build a modernized, and better-prepared US military for the new century. He would build a National Missile Defense for the US homeland and a theater missile defense for US forces deployed abroad as well as America's allies. He is more likely to live up to the requirement of the Taiwan Relations Act "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan."
On the other hand, there are certain factors to Taiwan's disadvantage. Corporate America has great influence on the Republican party and it will exert pressure on the US government to refrain from offending Beijing, even if it means sacrificing Taiwan's democracy.
It is widely assumed that Colin Powell would become the next Secretary of State under a new Bush administration. While he is an efficient military general, he is alleged to be deficient at geostrategic judgment. He opposed the invasion of Iraq in internal deliberations. However, such concerns may be somewhat allayed by examining the views of the formidable team of foreign policy advisors which Bush has assembled.
Thus, in Condoleeza Rice's view, "China is a potential threat to stability in the Asia-Pacific region. China would like to alter Asia's balance of power in its own favor. That alone makes it a strategic competitor, not the `strategic partner' the Clinton administration once called it. We should never be afraid to confront Beijing when our interests collide." Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage and Richard Perle were among the 22 signatories to a policy statement on Taiwan issued by the Heritage Foundation and the Project for the New American Century. The policy statement said the US should declare that it would go to Taiwan's defense in the event of an attack or a blockade against Taiwan.
Under pressure from the Clinton administration, Chen Shui-bian's (
In his speech at the Citadel, South Carolina, on Sept. 23, 1999, Bush cited the words of Winston Churchill, while Britain was denying the impending world war:
"The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences. Churchill's observation is germane to today's Taiwan.
Li Thian-hok is a board member at large of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs and is chairman of 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