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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS