Preparations for the US presidential election in November have entered an intense stage. The Democratic Party has held its convention in Boston. Next comes the Republican Party convention in New York.
Ethnic Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait and around the world are focusing on the two presidential candidates' cross-strait policies.
The Republican Party is already in power, and if Bush is re-elected, my guess is there won't be any major changes. But the Democratic Party's relationship with the Chinese government has always been better than that of the Republicans. In one of his campaign statements, Democratic Party presidential candidate John Kerry said that the "one country, two systems" model could be used to resolve the cross-strait relationship.
Furthermore, the section of the Democratic Party's election platform dealing with the Strait mentions the "one China" policy and "improved relations with China," but not the Taiwan Relations Act. Does this mean that there will be bigger policy changes if Kerry is elected? Although an addition has been made to the party's platform saying that a peaceful solution to the Strait issue must meet the interests of the people of Taiwan, the US and Taiwan may have different views of what those interests are. For the US, they may include the option to achieve peace through Taiwan's surrender.
Although the cross-strait policy of Kerry and his foreign policy team is ambiguous, some commentators have said that there are no great differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to protecting Taiwan. When China was lobbing missiles over the country during the 1996 presidential election, then-president Bill Clinton sent an aircraft carrier to the Strait to deter China. There have also been reports that the ethnic Chinese Representative David Wu, a Democrat who is very friendly towards Taiwan, sent a telegram to Kerry asking him about his "one country, two systems" statement. Kerry reportedly responded that it was a slip of the tongue.
But such "ambiguities" or "mistakes" could conceivably lead to China misinterpreting the situation and taking rash action, thereby destroying peace and stability in the Strait.
What's more, the past political attitudes of some important Democratic politicians are also cause for worry. First, Richard Holbrooke, a former US ambassador to the UN, is one of Kerry's likely picks for secretary of state. Around the time when the US severed diplomatic ties with Taiwan, he was assistant secretary of state for southeast Asia. Two years ago, with the support of former US ambassador to China J. Stapleton Roy, among others, Holbrooke strongly advocated that the US sign a fourth Sino-US communique with China. Holbrooke now believes that with the Cold War over, China is less of a threat to the free world than was the Soviet Union. But if one understands that the US was led into a trap in each of the three previous communiques, one can see that the fourth communique might be even more damaging to Taiwan.
Second, another former ambassador to China, James Sasser, is even more pro-China than Roy. He was on several occasions invited to the home of former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民). Some US media are fond of saying that, rather than being the US' ambassador to China, he was China's ambassador to the US.
When the US mistakenly bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999, the Chinese government instigated violent student protests outside the US embassy and consulates. Sasser probably didn't expect such treatment after having done everything he could to help China. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have made cross-strait policy the focus of their respective election campaigns. But a review of previous elections shows that Ronald Reagan criticized Jimmy Carter for severing diplomatic ties with Taiwan, that Clinton accused Beijing of being a dictatorship, while George W. Bush criticized Clinton for being too soft on Beijing.
Perhaps it is no coincidence that all three won the election -- voters think American values are important, and do not just look to short term benefits. Both the Republican and Democratic parties see anti-terrorism as the top foreign policy priority. The US should remain on its guard against the Chinese government -- given Beijing's murky relationships with international terrorists, and its view of the US as a potential enemy.
The Democratic Party should be more supportive of liberalism than the Republican Party, and it should not neglect China's deteriorating human rights record and rapidly expanding military. Democrats also have a weaker relationship with multinational corporations investing in China. Finally, the dumping of cheap Chinese products into the domestic market hurts the interests of US workers and small manufacturers -- which is something neither Republicans nor Democrats can ignore.
Paul Lin is a commentator based in New York.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under