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 a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
RSS